This is a PDF version of the Wikipedia article on Scientific Misconduct. The original source is
available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
Scientific misconduct
For dishonesty in educational settings, see Academic
misconduct.
same field. There are no “scientific police” who are
trained to fight scientific crimes; all investigations
are made by experts in science but amateurs in dealing with criminals. It is relatively easy to cheat although difficult to know exactly how many scientists
fabricate data.[7]
Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in
professional scientific research. A Lancet review on Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries
provides the following sample definitions:[1] (reproduced
in The COPE report 1999.)[2]
2 Forms of scientific misconduct
• Danish definition: “Intention or gross negligence The U.S. National Science Foundation defines three types
leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a of research misconduct: fabrication, falsification, and
plagiarism.[8][9]
false credit or emphasis given to a scientist”
• Fabrication is making up results and recording or
reporting them. This is sometimes referred to as
“drylabbing”.[10] A more minor form of fabrication is where references are included to give arguments the appearance of widespread acceptance,
but are actually fake, and/or do not support the
argument.[11]
• Swedish definition: “Intention[al] distortion of the
research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher’s
manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the
research process in other ways.”
The consequences of scientific misconduct can be damaging for both perpetrators[3][4] and any individual who
exposes it.[5] In addition there are public health implications attached to the promotion of medical or other interventions based on dubious research findings.
1
• Falsification is manipulating research materials,
equipment, or processes or changing or omitting
data or results such that the research is not accurately
represented in the research record.
• Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s
ideas, processes, results, or words without giving
appropriate credit. One form is the appropriation
of the ideas and results of others, and publishing
as to make it appear the author had performed all
the work under which the data was obtained. A
subset is citation plagiarism – willful or negligent
failure to appropriately credit other or prior discoverers, so as to give an improper impression of
priority. This is also known as, “citation amnesia”, the “disregard syndrome” and “bibliographic
negligence”.[12] Arguably, this is the most common
type of scientific misconduct. Sometimes it is difficult to guess whether authors intentionally ignored
a highly relevant cite or lacked knowledge of the
prior work. Discovery credit can also be inadvertently reassigned from the original discoverer to a
better-known researcher. This is a special case of
the Matthew effect.[13]
Motivation to commit scientific
misconduct
According to David Goodstein of Caltech, there are motivators for scientists to commit misconduct, which are
briefly summarised here.[6]
Career pressure Science is still a very strongly careerdriven discipline. Scientists depend on a good
reputation to receive ongoing support and funding,
and a good reputation relies largely on the publication of high-profile scientific papers. Hence, there is
a strong imperative to "publish or perish". Clearly,
this may motivate desperate (or fame-hungry) scientists to fabricate results.
Ease of fabrication In many scientific fields, results are
often difficult to reproduce accurately, being obscured by noise, artifacts, and other extraneous data.
That means that even if a scientist does falsify data,
they can expect to get away with it – or at least claim
innocence if their results conflict with others in the
• Plagiarism-Fabrication - the act of taking an
unrelated figure from an unrelated publication
and reproducing it exactly in a new publication
(claiming that it represents new data). Recent
1
2
3
RESPONSIBILITY OF AUTHORS AND OF COAUTHORS
papers from the University of Cordoba have Three percent of the 3,475 research institutions that recome to light showing how this can go unde- port to the US Department of Health and Human Sertected and unchallenged for years.[14][15]
vices' Office of Research Integrity, indicate some form of
[24]
However the ORI will only in• Self-plagiarism – or multiple publication of scientific misconduct.
vestigate
allegations
of
impropriety
where research was
the same content with different titles and/or
funded
by
federal
grants.
They
routinely
monitor such
in different journals is sometimes also considresearch
publication
for
red
flags.
Other
private
organiered misconduct; scientific journals explicitly
zations
like
the
Committee
of
Medical
Journal
Editors
ask authors not to do this. It is referred to as
“salami” (i.e. many identical slices) in the jar- (COJE) can only police their own members.
gon of medical journal editors (MJE). Accord- The validity of the methods and results of scientific paing to some MJE this includes publishing the pers are often scrutinized in journal clubs. In this venue,
same article in a different language.[16]
members can decide amongst themselves with the help of
peers if a scientific paper’s ethical standards are met.
Other types of research misconduct are also recognized:
• The violation of ethical standards regarding human 3 Responsibility of authors and of
and animal experiments – such as the standard
coauthors
that a human subject of the experiment must give
[17]
informed consent to the experiment.
Failure to
obtain ethical approval for clinical studies charac- Authors and coauthors of scientific publications have a
terised the case of Joachim Boldt.
variety of responsibilities. Contravention of the rules of
scientific authorship may lead to a charge of scientific
• Ghostwriting – the phenomenon where someone misconduct. All authors, including coauthors, are exother than the named author(s) makes a major con- pected to have made reasonable attempts to check findtribution. Typically, this is done to mask contri- ings submitted to academic journals for publication. Sibutions from drug companies. It incorporates pla- multaneous submission of scientific findings to more than
giarism and has an additional element of financial one journal or duplicate publication of findings is usually
fraud.
regarded as misconduct, under what is known as the In• Conversely, research misconduct is not limited to gelfinger rule, named after the editor of the New England
[25]
NOT listing authorship, but also includes the confer- Journal of Medicine 1967-1977, Franz Ingelfinger.
ring authorship on those that have not made substantial contributions to the research.[18][19] This is done
by senior researchers who muscle their way onto
the papers of inexperienced junior researchers[20] as
well as others that stack authorship in an effort to
guarantee publication. This is much harder to prove
due to a lack of consistency in defining “authorship”
or “substantial contribution”.[21][22][23]
In addition, some academics consider suppression—the
failure to publish significant findings due to the results
being adverse to the interests of the researcher or his/her
sponsor(s)—to be a form of misconduct as well.
Guest authorship (where there is stated authorship in the
absence of involvement, also known as gift authorship)
and ghost authorship (where the real author is not listed
as an author) are commonly regarded as forms of research misconduct. In some cases coauthors of faked research have been accused of inappropriate behavior or
research misconduct for failing to verify reports authored
by others or by a commercial sponsor. Examples include the case of Gerald Schatten who co-authored with
Hwang Woo-Suk, the case of Professor Geoffrey Chamberlain named as guest author of papers fabricated by
Malcolm Pearce,[26] (Chamberlain was exonerated from
collusion in Pearce’s deception)[27] - and the coauthors
with Jan Hendrik Schön at Bell Laboratories. More recent cases include that of Charles Nemeroff,[28] then the
editor-in-chief of Neuropsychopharmacology, and a welldocumented case[29] involving the drug Actonel.
• Bare assertions – making entirely unsubstantiated
claims - may also be considered a form of research
misconduct although there is no evidence that cases
of this form have ever led to a finding of misconduct. Authors are expected to keep all study data for later examination even after publication. The failure to keep data
In some cases, scientific misconduct may also constitute may be regarded as misconduct. Some scientific journals
violations of the law, but not always. Being accused of the require that authors provide information to allow readers
activities described in this article is a serious matter for to determine whether the authors might have commercial
a practicing scientist, with severe consequences should it or non-commercial conflicts of interest. Authors are also
be determined that a researcher intentionally or carelessly commonly required to provide information about ethical
engaged in misconduct. However in most countries, com- aspects of research, particularly where research involves
mitting research misconduct, even on a large scale, is not human or animal participants or use of biological material. Provision of incorrect information to journals may
a legal offence.
3
be regarded as misconduct. Financial pressures on universities have encouraged this type of misconduct. The
majority of recent cases of alleged misconduct involving undisclosed conflicts of interest or failure of the authors to have seen scientific data involve collaborative research between scientists and biotechnology companies
(Nemeroff,[28] Blumsohn).[30]
4
suggests that it is very difficult for people to act or come
forward when they see unacceptable behavior, unless they
have help from their organizations. A “User-friendly
Guide,” and the existence of a confidential organizational
ombudsman may help people who are uncertain about
what to do, or afraid of bad consequences for their speaking up.[34]
Responsibilities of research insti- 6 Responsibility of journals
tutions
Journals are responsible for safeguarding the
In general, defining whether an individual is guilty of
misconduct requires a detailed investigation by the individual’s employing academic institution. Such investigations require detailed and rigorous processes and can be
extremely costly. Furthermore, the more senior the individual under suspicion, the more likely it is that conflicts of interest will compromise the investigation. In
many countries (with the notable exception of the United
States) acquisition of funds on the basis of fraudulent data
is not a legal offence and there is consequently no regulator to oversee investigations into alleged research misconduct. Universities therefore have few incentives to investigate allegations in a robust manner, or act on the findings
of such investigations if they vindicate the allegation.
Well publicised cases illustrate the potential role that senior academics in research institutions play in concealing
scientific misconduct. A King’s College (London) internal investigation showed research findings from one of
their researchers to be 'at best unreliable, and in many
cases spurious’[31] but the college took no action, such as
retracting relevant published research or preventing further episodes from occurring. It was only 10 years later,
when an entirely separate form of misconduct by the same
individual was being investigated by the General Medical
Council, that the internal report came to light.
research
record and hence have a critical role in dealing with suspected misconduct. This is recognised by the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) which has issued clear
guidelines[35] on the form (e.g. retraction) that concerns
over the research record should take.
• The COPE guidelines state that journal editors
should consider retracting a publication if they have
clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication)
or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error). Retraction is also appropriate in cases of
redundant publication, plagiarism and unethical research.
• Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if they receive inconclusive evidence
of research or publication misconduct by the authors, there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate
the case, they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either
has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial
or conclusive, or an investigation is underway but
a judgement will not be available for a considerable
time.
• Journal editors should consider issuing a correction
In a more recent case[32] an internal investigation at the
if a small portion of an otherwise reliable publicaNational Centre for Cell Science (NCCS), Pune detertion proves to be misleading (especially because of
mined that there was evidence of misconduct by Dr.
honest error), or the author / contributor list is inGopal Kundu, but an external committee was then organcorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or
ised which dismissed the allegation, and the NCCS issued
somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has
a memorandum exonerating the authors of all charges of
been included).
misconduct. Undeterred by the NCCS exoneration, the
relevant journal (Journal of Biological Chemistry) with- Recent evidence has emerged that journals learning of
drew the paper based on its own analysis.
cases where there is strong evidence of possible misconduct, with issues potentially affecting a large portion of
the findings, frequently fail to issue an expression of con5 Responsibilities of scientific col- cern or correspond with the host institution so that an investigation can be undertaken. In one case the Journal of
leagues who are “bystanders”
Clinical Oncology issued a Correction despite strong evidence that the original paper was invalid.[15] In another
Some academics believe that scientific colleagues who case,[36] Nature allowed a Corrigendum to be published
suspect scientific misconduct should consider taking in- despite clear evidence of image fraud. Subsequent Reformal action themselves, or reporting their concerns.[33] traction of the paper required the actions of an indepenThis question is of great importance since much research dent whistleblower.[37]
4
9
The recent cases of Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii[38]
in anaesthesiology have focussed attention on the role that
journals play in perpetuating scientific fraud as well as
how they can deal with it. In the Boldt case, the Editorsin-Chief of 18 specialist journals (generally anaesthesia
and intensive care) made a joint statement regarding 88
published clinical trials conducted without Ethics Committee approval. In the Fujii case, involving nearly 200
papers, the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia, which published 24 of Fujii’s papers, has accepted that its handling
of the issue was inadequate. Following publication of a
Letter to the Editor from Kranke and colleagues in April
2000,[39] along with a non-specific response from Dr. Fujii, there was no follow-up on the allegation of data manipulation and no request for an institutional review of
Dr. Fujii’s research. Anesthesia & Analgesia went on to
publish 11 additional manuscripts by Dr. Fujii following
the 2000 allegations of research fraud, with Editor Steven
Shafer stating[40] in March 2012 that subsequent submissions to the Journal by Dr. Fujii should not have been
published without first vetting the allegations of fraud. In
April 2012 Shafer led a group of editors to write a joint
statement,[41] in the form of an ultimatum made available
to the public, to a large number of academic institutions
where Fujii had been employed, offering these institutions the chance to attest to the integrity of the bulk of
the allegedly fraudulent papers.
7
Photo manipulation
Compared to other forms of scientific misconduct, image fraud (manipulation of images to distort their meaning) is of particular interest since it can frequently be
detected by external parties. In 2006, the Journal of
Cell Biology gained publicity for instituting tests to detect
photo manipulation in papers that were being considered
for publication.[42] This was in response to the increased
usage of programs by scientists such as Adobe Photoshop, which facilitate photo manipulation. Since then
more publishers, including the Nature Publishing Group,
have instituted similar tests and require authors to minimize and specify the extent of photo manipulation when
a manuscript is submitted for publication. However there
is little evidence to indicate that such tests are applied
rigorously. One Nature paper published in 2009[36] has
subsequently been reported to contain around 20 separate
instances[43] of image fraud.
CONSEQUENCES FOR SCIENCE
• any change that conceals information, even when it
is considered to be aspecific, which includes:
• changing brightness and contrast to leave only
the most intense signal
• using clone tools to hide information
• showing only a very small part of the photograph so
that additional information is not visible
8 Suppression/non-publication of
data
A related issue concerns the deliberate suppression, failure to publish, or selective release of the findings of scientific studies. Such cases may not be strictly definable
as scientific misconduct as the deliberate falsification of
results is not present. However, in such cases the intent
may nevertheless be to deliberately deceive. Studies may
be suppressed or remain unpublished because the findings
are perceived to undermine the commercial, political or
other interests of the sponsoring agent or because they fail
to support the ideological goals of the researcher. Examples include the failure to publish studies if they demonstrate the harm of a new drug, or truthfully publishing
the benefits of a treatment while omitting harmful sideeffects.
This is distinguishable from other concepts such as bad
science, junk science or pseudoscience where the criticism centres on the methodology or underlying assumptions. It may be possible in some cases to use statistical methods to show that the datasets offered in relation
to a given field are incomplete. However this may simply reflect the existence of real-world restrictions on researchers without justifying more sinister conclusions.
Some cases go beyond the failure to publish complete reports of all findings with researchers knowingly making
false claims based on falsified data. This falls clearly under the definition of scientific misconduct, even if the result was achieved by suppressing data.
9 Consequences for science
The consequences of scientific fraud vary based on the
severity of the fraud, the level of notice it receives, and
how long it goes undetected. For cases of fabricated evidence, the consequences can be wide-ranging, with others
working to confirm (or refute) the false finding, or with
• splicing together different images to represent a sin- research agendas being distorted to address the fraudulent evidence. The Piltdown Man fraud is a case in point:
gle experiment
The significance of the bona-fide fossils that were being
• changing brightness and contrast of only a part of found was muted for decades because they disagreed with
the image
Piltdown Man and the preconceived notions that those
Although the type of manipulation that is allowed can depend greatly on the type of experiment that is presented
and also differ from one journal to another, in general the
following manipulations are not allowed:
5
faked fossils supported. In addition, the prominent paleontologist Arthur Smith Woodward spent time at Piltdown each year until he died, trying to find more Piltdown
Man remains. The misdirection of resources kept others
from taking the real fossils more seriously and delayed
the reaching of a correct understanding of human evolution. (The Taung Child, which should have been the death
knell for the view that the human brain evolved first, was
instead treated very critically because of its disagreement
with the Piltdown Man evidence.)
tive decision the career of the whistleblower can be under
question: their reputation of “troublemaker” will prevent
many employers from hiring them. There is no international body where a whistleblower could give their concerns. If a university fails to investigate suspected fraud
or provides a fake investigation to save their reputation
the whistleblower has no right of appeal.
In the case of Prof Don Poldermans, the misconduct
occurred in reports of trials of treatment to prevent 11 Exposure of fraudulent data
death and myocardial infarction in patients undergoing
operations.[44] The trial reports were relied upon to issue guidelines that applied for many years across North With the advancement of the internet, there are now sevAmerica and Europe.[45]
eral tools available to aid in the detection of plagiarism
In the case of Dr Alfred Steinschneider, two decades and multiple publication within biomedical literature.
and tens of millions of research dollars were lost try- One tool developed in 2006 by researchers in Dr. Harold
ing to find the elusive link between infant sleep apnea, Garner's laboratory at the University of Texas Southwest[50]
an openwhich Steinschneider said he had observed and recorded ern Medical Center at Dallas is Déjà vu,
access
database
containing
several
thousand
instances
of
in his laboratory, and sudden infant death syndrome
duplicate
publication.
All
of
the
entries
in
the
database
(SIDS), of which he stated it was a precursor. The
cover was blown in 1994, 22 years after Steinschneider’s were discovered through the use of text data mining algo1972 Pediatrics paper claiming such an association,[46] rithm eTBLAST, also created in Dr. Garner’s laboratory.
[51]
and the subsequent classifiwhen Waneta Hoyt, the mother of the patients in the pa- The creation of Déjà vu
cation
of
several
hundred
articles
contained therein have
per, was arrested, indicted and convicted on 5 counts of
ignited
much
discussion
in
the
scientific
community consecond-degree murder for the smothering deaths of her
[47]
cerning
issues
such
as
ethical
behavior,
journal
standards,
five children. While that in itself was bad enough, the
and
intellectual
copyright.
Studies
on
this
database
have
paper, presumably written as an attempt to save infants’
been
published
in
journals
such
as
Nature
and
Science,
lives, ironically was ultimately used as a defense by par[52][53]
ents suspected in multiple deaths of their own children in among others.
cases of Münchausen syndrome by proxy. The 1972 Pe- Other tools which may be used to detect fraudulent data
diatrics paper was cited in 404 papers in the interim and include error analysis. Measurements generally have a
is still listed on Pubmed without comment.[48]
small amount of error, and repeated measurements of
the same item will generally result in slight differences
in readings. These differences can be analyzed, and follow certain known mathematical and statistical proper10 Consequences for those who ex- ties. Should a set of data appear to be too faithful to the
hypothesis, i.e., the amount of error that would normally
pose misconduct
be in such measurements does not appear, a conclusion
can be drawn that the data may have been forged. Error
The potentially severe consequences for individuals who
analysis alone is typically not sufficient to prove that data
are found to have engaged in misconduct also reflect on
have been falsified or fabricated, but it may provide the
the institutions that host or employ them and also on
supporting evidence necessary to confirm suspicions of
the participants in any peer review process that has almisconduct.
lowed the publication of questionable research. This
means that a range of actors in any case may have a motivation to suppress any evidence or suggestion of misconduct. Persons who expose such cases, commonly
called whistleblowers, can find themselves open to retaliation by a number of different means.[26] These nega- 12 Data sharing
tive consequences for exposers of misconduct have driven
the development of whistle blowers charters - designed
to protect those who raise concerns. A whistleblower Kirby Lee and Lisa Bero suggest, “Although reviewing
is almost always alone in their fight - their career be- raw data can be difficult, time-consuming and expensive,
comes completely dependent on the decision about al- having such a policy would hold authors more accountleged misconduct.[49] If the accusations prove false, their able for the accuracy of their data and potentially reduce
career is completely destroyed, but even in case of posi- scientific fraud or misconduct.”[54]
6
13 INDIVIDUAL CASES
13
Individual cases
13.1.5 Israel
13.1
at Holon
Research conducted during employ- Alexander Spivak, a tenured senior lecturer
Institute of Technology (HIT), plagiarized [70] a paper
ment by an institution or a corpora- [71] written in 2001 by his former postdoctoral adviser
tion
and two other researchers from Tel Aviv University.
13.1.1
China
• H. Zhong, T. Liu, and their co-workers at
Jinggangshan University have retracted numerous
papers published in Acta Crystallographica following systematic checking which revealed that the organic structures claimed in these papers were impossible or implausible. The supporting data appeared
to have been taken from valid cases which had then
been altered by substituting different atoms into the
structures.[55][56]
13.1.2
Denmark
• Milena Penkowa (neuroscience), resigned her professorship after accusations of scientific misconduct, fraud, and embezzlement of research
funds.[57][58][59]
13.1.3
Germany
• Joachim Boldt (drug research), stripped of his professorship, under criminal investigation for possible
forgery of up to 90 research studies.[60]
• Silvia Bulfone-Paus (immunology), 13 peerreviewed journal articles retracted following
investigations of alleged misconduct.[61]
• Jan Hendrik Schön (physics of semiconductors),
forged results, using the same graph image in different contexts.[62]
Two chapters of their original paper were copied-andpasted and published, as two separate articles, in the
International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics
(IJPAM) seven years later. After the plagiarism was discovered in 2014, both papers were retracted [72][73] by the
IJPAM Managing Editor. The HIT administration’s handling of the plagiarism affair received some public criticism [74] as the academic dishonesty of Dr. Spivak has
not been openly denounced by the HIT officials and the
plagiator was even awarded a sabbatical leave (which is
not a vested right of the faculty in Israeli colleges).
13.1.6 Japan
• Teruji Cho (Plasma Physics). Cho and three
coworkers falsified raw data reported in a research
paper. Cho was dismissed by the University of
Tsukuba.[75]
• Yoshitaka Fujii (anaesthesiology) was found to have
fabricated data in at least 172 scientific papers, setting what is believed to be a record for the number of
papers by a single author requiring retractions.[76][77]
• Haruko Obokata (stem cell biology)
• Akio Sugino (molecular biology) was fired by Osaka
University after an investigating committee found he
had fabricated research data.[78][79]
• Kazunari Taira (molecular biology). An investigation by the University of Tokyo found a “high possibility” that fraud was involved in a series of RNA
studies from Taira’s laboratory. Taira’s contract was
not renewed.[80][81][82]
• Friedhelm Herrmann (cancer research). Fraud
investigation concludes that self-regulation has
failed.[63]
13.1.7 Netherlands
13.1.4
Great Britain
• Researchers at Cranfield University – aircraft cabin
air contamination – fudged data and inappropriate
methodology.[64][65][66]
• Richard Eastell - Actonel Affair; resigned
after allegations of financial irregularities;
(Medicine).[67][68][69]
• Malcolm Pearce (author) - Fraudulent description of
successful reimplantation of ectopic pregnancy.[26]
• Andrew Wakefield - Fraudulent paper in the Lancet
associating the MMR vaccine with autism.
• Mart Bax (anthropology) – Various kinds of serious scientific misconduct. For example, in two cases
Bax stated to have relied on one single local informant who told him improbable stories about public
events that were not confirmed by anyone else. Bax
did not check the stories and wrote them down in detail as if these they were historical facts. The commission that investigated Bax' research was unable
to interview these two informants, so data fabrication by Bax could not be proven.[83][84][85][86]
• Diederik Stapel (social psychology) – fabricated data in high-publicity studies of human
behaviour.[87] Stapel committed scientific fraud in
13.1
Research conducted during employment by an institution or a corporation
7
at least 55 of his papers, as well as in 10 Ph.D. 13.1.13 Spain
dissertations written by his students. Accordng
to the New York Times, Stapel “perpetrated an
• Juan Carlos Mejuto and Gonzalo Astray.[99]
audacious academic fraud by making up studies that
(chemical physics). Two papers in Journal of
told the world what it wanted to hear about human
Chemical and Engineering Data withdrawn by the
nature.”[88]
editor[100] because of plagiarism.
13.1.8
Norway
• José Román-Gómez, University of Cordoba,
appropriation of gel images in claimed work
on signalling[101] and DNA methylation[102] in
leukaemia
• A researcher employed by a Norwegian hospital
(Stavanger universitetssjukehus) analyzed samples
of spinal fluid from patients, after the researcher had
13.1.14 Switzerland
added a substance to the sample.[89]
• Bruno Frey (economics).[103]
• Jon Sudbø fabricated data for a study that reported
“nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduced the
risk of oral cancer”.[90]
13.1.15 United States
13.1.9
Romania
• Dănuț Marcu, a Romanian mathematician and computer scientist, who was banned from several journals due to plagiarism. He had submitted a
manuscript which was more-or-less word for word
the same as a paper written by another author.
• Ioan Mang, a computer scientist at the University
of Oradea, plagiarized a paper by cryptographer Eli
Biham,[91] Dean of the Computer Science Department of Technion, Haifa, Israel. He was accused of
extensive plagiarism in at least eight of his academic
papers.[92][93][94][95]
13.1.10
Saudi Arabia
• Hazem Ali Attia, an Egyptian professor in the Department of Mathematics of Al-Qasseem University
had a 2007 paper retracted from the MATHEMATICAL METHODS IN THE APPLIED SCIENCES
journal, for being a near identical copy of an earlier paper published in the International Journal of
Thermal Science.[96]
13.1.11
South Africa
• Werner Bezwoda, who admitted to scientific misconduct in trials on high-dose chemotherapy on
breast cancer.[97]
13.1.12
South Korea
• Woo-Suk Hwang (Hwang Woo-Suk) (cloning).[98]
• John Darsee (cardiology), data fabrication as well as
errors/discrepancies on 16 of 18 full-length research
articles, and an unknown number of over 100 additional abstracts and book chapters.[104]
• Dipak Das found guilty of 145 counts of fabrication
or falsification of data at the University of Connecticut Health Center.[105]
• Terry Elton was found guilty of misconduct by both
Ohio State University and the Office of Research Integrity.
• Marc Hauser (evolutionary psychology).[106]
• Doctoral student Roxana Gonzalez (social psychology) engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by National Institute of Mental
Health (NIMH) and National Institutes of Health
(NIH).[107][108][109] The United States Office of Research Integrity found that data falsification altered
five published articles first-authored by Jennifer
Lerner. As a result, articles were retracted from
the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Biological Psychiatry, and the Journal of Experimental Psychology.
• Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories fabricated research
data to the extent that upon FDA analysis of 867
studies, 618 (71%) were deemed invalid, including many of which were used to gain regulatory
approval for widely used household and industrial
products.[110][111]
• H.M. Krishna Murthy, while at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, had nine papers on protein
structures retracted because his experimental findings appear to be false or fabricated.[112]
• Victor Ninov[113] (nuclear physics)
8
14
SEE ALSO
• Ohio University had a plagiarism crisis in the 2000s 13.2 Non-institutional and non-corporate
when severe plagiarism in MS theses was discovresearch
ered. This resulted in the firing of tenured professors Drs. Gunasekara and Mehta of the Mechan• Andrew Wakefield, who claimed links between the
ical Engineering Department and multiple instituMMR vaccine, autism and inflammatory bowel distional changes.[114] Plagiarism included that by curease. He was found guilty of dishonesty in his
rent professor at Miami University [115]
research and banned from medicine by the UK
General Medical Council following an investigation
• Ohio State University revoked Elisabeth Nixon’s
by Brian Deer of the London Sunday Times.[134]
[116][117]
PhD in anthropology due to plagiarism.
• Leo A. Paquette[118][119] (chemistry)
• Eric Poehlman, a researcher on aging at the
University of Vermont, was prosecuted for grant
fraud in 2005 after falsifying data in as many as 17
grant applications in a period of over eight years.
He was the first academic in the United States to be
jailed for falsifying data in a grant application.[120]
• Anil Potti (cancer researcher), formerly at Duke
University, is the subject of a scientific misconduct
investigation alleging that he falsified results of cancer genomics data. To date, ten of his publications
have been retracted.[121]
• Scott Reuben (medical management of pain)[122]
14 See also
• Academic misconduct
• Archaeological forgery
• Bioethics
• Bullying in academia
• Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty
• EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of
Scientific Articles
• Engineering ethics
• Fabrication (science)
• Karen M. Ruggiero (social psychology), fabricated
data on at least five experiments while at Harvard
University on research regarding gender and discrimination in studies supported by NIH[123][124][125]
• Hippocratic Oath for scientists
• Eric J. Smart, nutrition researcher, associate professor and vice-chairman of the Department of Pediatrics and the Barnstable-Brown Chair in Diabetes
Research at the University of Kentucky, was censured in November 2012 by the US government’s
Office of Research Integrity for a career of scientific misconduct that lasted over 10 years.[126] According to the allegations in the report, published in
the Federal Register, he falsified data in at least 10
papers and many grant applications.[127]
• List of fallacies
• Albert Steinschneider - Sleep apnea, Pursued a theory on the causes of SIDS even though his research never really supported it. He and his disciples eventually channeled tens of millions of dollars in federal grant money to research programs
based on Steinschneider’s hunch, even though the
theory was never demonstratable or duplicateable in
the lab.[46][47][98][128][129][130]
• Weishui Weiser (immunology), falsifying data in
biomedical research supported by two Public Health
Service (PHS) grants.[131][132]
• Luk Van Parijs (biology) multiple retractions and
criminal conviction for grant fraud[133]
• List of biases in judgment and decision making
• List of experimental errors and frauds in physics
• List of memory biases
• List of plagiarism controversies
• List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
• Lysenkoism
• Mertonian norms
• ORI, i.e. the United States Office of Research Integrity
• Pathological science
• Politicization of science
• Reproducibility
• Research ethics
• Retraction
• Scientific method
• Scientific plagiarism in India
• Sham peer review
9
• Source criticism
• Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls
of Science
[10] Shapiro, M.F. (1992).
“Data audit by a regulatory agency: Its effect and implication for others”
(PDF). Accountability in Research 2 (3): 219–229.
doi:10.1080/08989629208573818. PMID 11653981.
• Straight and Crooked Thinking
[11] Emmeche, slide 5
• The Great Betrayal: Fraud In Science
[12] Eugene Garfield (January 21, 2002). “Demand Citation
Vigilance”. The Scientist 16(2):6. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
• Committee on Publication Ethics
• World Association of Medical Editors
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
14.1
Categories
• Category:Hoaxes in science
• Category:Medical research
• Category:Scientific misconduct
• Category:Scientific skepticism
15
Notes
[1] Nylenna, M.; Andersen, D.; Dahlquist, G.; Sarvas, M.;
Aakvaag, A. (1999). “Handling of scientific dishonesty
in the Nordic countries. National Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in the Nordic Countries”. Lancet 354
(9172): 57–61. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07133-5.
PMID 10406378.
[2] “Coping with fraud” (PDF). The COPE Report 1999: 11–
18. Archived from the original on 2007-09-28. Retrieved
2006-09-02. It is 10 years, to the month, since Stephen
Lock ... Reproduced with kind permission of the Editor,
The Lancet.
[3] Xie, Yun (2008-08-12).
“What are the consequences of scientific misconduct?".
Ars Technica.
doi:10.1126/science.1158052. Retrieved 2013-03-01.
[4] Redman and Berz. “Scientific Misconduct: Do the Punishments Fit the Crime?" (PDF) 321. Sciencemag.
[5] “Consequences of Whistleblowing for the Whistleblower
in Misconduct in Science Cases” (PDF). Research Triangle Institute. 1995.
[6] Goodstein, David (January–February 2002). “Scientific
misconduct”. Academe (AAUP).
[7] Fanelli, D. (2009). Tregenza, Tom, ed. “How Many
Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data”. PLoS
ONE 4 (5): e5738. Bibcode:2009PLoSO...4.5738F.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
PMC 2685008.
PMID 19478950.
[8] “New Research Misconduct Policies, NSF” (PDF). Retrieved 2013-03-01.
[9] 45 CFR Part 689
[13] Emmeche, slide 3, who refers to the phenonemon as Dulbecco’s law.
[14] Roman-Gomez, J.; Jimenez-Velasco, A.; Castillejo, J.
A.; Agirre, X.; Barrios, M.; Navarro, G.; Molina, F. J.;
Calasanz, M. J.; Prosper, F.; Heiniger, A.; Torres, A.
(2004). “Promoter hypermethylation of cancer-related
genes: A strong independent prognostic factor in acute
lymphoblastic leukemia”. Blood 104 (8): 2492–2498.
doi:10.1182/blood-2004-03-0954. PMID 15198948.
[15] Roman-Gomez, J.; Jimenez-Velasco, A.; Agirre, X.;
Prosper, F.; Heiniger, A.; Torres, A. (2005). “Lack of
CpG Island Methylator Phenotype Defines a Clinical Subtype of T-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Associated with Good Prognosis”. Journal of Clinical Oncology
23 (28): 7043–7049. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.01.4944.
PMID 16192589.
[16] “Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals — The
World Association of Medical Editors”. Wame.org. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
[17] “Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals — The
World Association of Medical Editors”. Wame.org. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
[18] http://www.icmje.org/#author
[19] “Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals — The
World Association of Medical Editors”. Wame.org. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
[20] Kwok, L. S. (2005). “The White Bull effect: Abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism”.
Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (9):
554–556.
doi:10.1136/jme.2004.010553.
PMC 1734216.
PMID 16131560.
[21] Bates, T.; Anić, A.; Marusić, M.; Marusić, A. (2004).
“Authorship Criteria and Disclosure of Contributions:
Comparison of 3 General Medical Journals with Different Author Contribution Forms”. JAMA: the Journal
of the American Medical Association 292 (1): 86–88.
doi:10.1001/jama.292.1.86. PMID 15238595.
[22] Bhopal, R.; Rankin, J.; McColl, E.; Thomas, L.; Kaner,
E.; Stacy, R.; Pearson, P.; Vernon, B.; Rodgers, H.
(1997). “The vexed question of authorship: Views
of researchers in a British medical faculty”. BMJ
(Clinical research ed.)
314 (7086): 1009–1012.
doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7086.1009. PMC 2126416. PMID
9112845.
[23] Wager, E. (2007). “Do medical journals provide clear
and consistent guidelines on authorship?". MedGenMed
: Medscape general medicine 9 (3): 16. PMC 2100079.
PMID 18092023.
10
[24] Wired Magazine, March 2004
[25] Toy, Jennifer (December 2002) “The Ingelfinger Rule”
(PDF) Science Editor • Vol. 25 • No. 6 • p. 195. Retrieved 20 December 2014
[26] “Lessons from the Pearce affair: handling scientific fraud”.
BMJ 310: 1547.
June 17, 1995.
doi:10.1136/bmj.310.6994.1547. (registration required)
[27] “Independent Committee of Inquiry into the publication
of articles in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (1994-1995)". Retrieved 2011-08-26.
[28] http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/24445/
[29] http://www.thejabberwock.org/wiki/index.php?title=
Actonel_Case_Media_Reports
[30] Dickerson, John. “Did a British university sell out to
P&G? - Slate Magazine”. Slate.com. Retrieved 201308-04.
[31] Wilmshurst P. “Institutional corruption in medicine
(2002)".
British Medical Journal 325: 1232–5.
doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7374.1232.
15 NOTES
[42] Nicholas Wade (2006-01-24). “It May Look Authentic;
Here’s How to Tell It Isn't”. New York Times. Retrieved
2010-04-01.
[43] 11jigen (2012-01-15). “Shigeaki Kato (the University of Tokyo): DNA demethylation in hormoneKatolabinduced transcriptional derepression”.
imagefraud.blogspot.co.uk. Retrieved 2013-08-04.
[44] Vogel, G. (30 January 2014). “Suspect Drug Research
Blamed for Massive Death Toll”. Science 343 (6170):
473–474. doi:10.1126/science.343.6170.473. Retrieved
14 September 2014.
[45] Cole, G. D.; Francis, D. P. (29 August 2014).
“Perioperative beta blockade: guidelines do not reflect the problems with the evidence from the DECREASE trials”. BMJ 349 (aug29 8): g5210–g5210.
doi:10.1136/bmj.g5210. PMID 25172044.
[46] Steinschneider A (October 1972). “Prolonged apnea and
the sudden infant death syndrome: clinical and laboratory observations”. Pediatrics 50 (4): 646–54. PMID
4342142.
[32] Jayaraman, K. S. (June 14, 2007). “Indian scientists battle
journal retraction”. Nature 447 (7146).
[47] Talan, Jamie; Firstman, Richard (1997). The death of innocents. New York: Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-100130.
[33] See Gerald Koocher and Patricia Keith Speigel in NATURE Vol 466 22 July 2010: Peers Nip Misconduct in
the Bud, and (with Joan Sieber) Responding to Research
Wrongdoing: A User Friendly Guide, July 2010.
[48] “Prolonged apnea and the sudden infant death syndr...
[Pediatrics. 1972] - PubMed - NCBI”. Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
2013-03-25. Retrieved 2013-08-04.
[34] See Mary Rowe, Linda Wilcox and Howard Gadlin, Dealing with—or Reporting—"Unacceptable” Behavior—
with additional thoughts about the “Bystander Effect,” in
JIOA, vol.2, no.1, pp52–62.
[35] Retraction Guidelines (PDF)
[36] Kim, M. S.; Kondo, T.; Takada, I.; Youn, M. Y.;
Yamamoto, Y.; Takahashi, S.; Matsumoto, T.; Fujiyama, S.; Shirode, Y.; Yamaoka, I.; Kitagawa, H.;
Takeyama, K. I.; Shibuya, H.; Ohtake, F.; Kato, S.
(2009). “DNA demethylation in hormone-induced transcriptional derepression”. Nature 461 (7266): 1007–
1012. doi:10.1038/nature08456. PMID 19829383.
[37] “Shikeagi Kato, who resigned post in March, retracts Nature paper | Retraction Watch”. Retractionwatch.wordpress.com. Retrieved 2013-03-01.
[38] “Major fraud probe of Japanese anesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii may challenge retraction record | Retraction
Watch”. Retractionwatch.wordpress.com. Retrieved
2013-08-04.
[39] Kranke, P.; Apfel, C. C.; Roewer, N.; Fujii, Y.
(2000). “Reported data on granisetron and postoperative nausea and vomiting by Fujii et al. Are incredibly nice!". Anesthesia and analgesia 90 (4): 1004–
1007. doi:10.1213/00000539-200004000-00054. PMID
10735823.
[49] Wilmshurst, Peter. “Dishonesty in Medical Research”
(PDF).
[50] “Déjà vu: Medline duplicate publication database”. Dejavu.vbi.vt.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-04.
[51] “Deja vu: Medline duplicate publication database”. Dejavu.vbi.vt.edu. Retrieved 2013-08-04.
[52] Errami M, Garner HR (2008-01-23). “A tale of two citations”. Nature. doi:10.1038/451397a.
[53] Long TC, Errami M, George AC, Sun Z, Garner
HR (2009-03-06).
“SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY:
Responding to Possible Plagiarism”.
Science.
doi:10.1126/science.1167408.
[54] Ethics: Increasing accountability Nature (2006) |
doi:10.1038/nature05007
[55] William T. A. Harrison, a Jim Simpsonb and
Matthias Weilc (January 2010).
“Editorial”.
Acta Crystallographica Section E 66:
e1–e2.
doi:10.1107/S1600536809051757. ISSN 1600-5368.
[56] Doreen Walton (8 January 2010). Lancet urges China to
tackle scientific fraud. BBC.
[57] “UniversityPost | Independent university journalism”.
Universitypost.dk. Retrieved 2013-08-04.
[40] Fujii Statement of Concern (PDF)
[58] Fraud investigation rocks Danish university, from Nature.
[41] Fujii Join EIC Statement (PDF)
[59] Milena Penkowa in Danish-language Wikipedia
11
[60] Heidi Blake, Holly Watt and Robert Winnett. “Millions
of surgery patients at risk in drug research fraud scandal”.
The Telegraph, 03 Mar 2011 (retrieved 2011-03-03)
[61] Marcus, Adam. “Bulfone-Paus retraction count grows to
13 with one in Transplantation”. Retraction Watch. Retraction Watch. Retrieved 17 January 2012.
[62] “Scandal Rocks Scientific Community”. Deutsche Welle.
30 September 2002.
[63] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC1173372/
[64] Cook, N. “Breathe easy?" RoSPA Occupational Safety
Health J., November 2011, pp. 9-13.
[65] Learmount, D. “Cabin-air research seems to reverse norisk conclusion” Flight International, 15–21 November
2011, p. 16.
[66] Ramsden, J.J. (2011), “The scientific adequacy of the
present state of knowledge concerning neurotoxins in aircraft cabin air”, J. Biol. Phys. Chem. 11: 152–164,
doi:10.4024/27ra11a.jbpc.11.04
[67] Jo Revill (2006-01-15). “Doctor in drug research row
quits NHS post”. London: Observer. Retrieved 200909-08.
[68] Phil Baty (2006-01-06). “Drugs trial row scientist resigns”. Times Higher Education. Retrieved 2009-09-08.
did not indicate that initial inquiries uncovered wrongdoing
[69] “Actonel Case Media Reports - Scientific Misconduct
Wiki”. Thejabberwock.org. 2011-07-07. Retrieved
2013-03-01.
[70] Ferguson, Cat. “Blatant plagiarism sinks paper (and earns
a sabbatical!) for mathematician”. Retraction Watch.
[71] B. Nadler, T. Naeh, and Z. Schuss. “The Stationary Arrival Process of Independent Diffusers from a Continuum
to an Absorbing Boundary Is Poissonian”. SIAM J. Appl.
Math. 62: 433–447. doi:10.1137/S0036139900372363.
[72] A. Spivak (2008). “The Steady State Absorption Stream
at an Absorbing Boundary”. International Journal of Pure
and Applied Mathematics 44: 327–333.
[73] A. Spivak (2008). “The Probabilistic Characterization of
the Arrival Process of Particles into an Absorbing Boundary”. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 48: 73–79.
[74] Tali Heruti-Sover (2014-09-03). “Lies of Educators”.
Haaretz.
[75] University of Tsukuba (2007-11-27). “Investigation Report on the Suspected Scientific Misconduct” (PDF). Retrieved 2010-05-05.Hiroshi Mizubayashi. “University of
Tsukuba defends professor’s dismissal”. Physics Today.
doi:10.1063/1.3086082.
[76] Normile, Dennis (2 July 2012), “A New Record for Retractions?", Science Insider (American Association for the
Advancement of Science)
[77] S. Shafer (2012). “Statement of Concern” (PDF).
[78] D. Normile.
“Scientific Misconduct.
Universities Take Action”.
Science
doi:10.1126/science.315.5808.26.
Japan’s
Magazine.
[79] Open copy of previous Science news article, accessed
8/24/2013
[80] “Further accusations rock Japanese RNA laboratory”.
Nature 440 (7085): 720–721.
2006.
doi:10.1038/440720a.
[81] Open copy of Nature news article of 6 April 2006, (PDF)
accessed 8/24/13
[82] “Access : Doubts over biochemist’s data expose holes in
Japanese fraud laws”. Nature. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
[83] Baud, Michiel, Legêne, Susan, and Pels, Peter
Circumventing Reality: Report on the Anthropological Work of Professor Emeritus M.M.G. Bax (PDF)
by , Amsterdam, 9 September 2013, commissioned and
endorsed by the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, official
English language version of the final report
[84] College van Bestuur VU onderschrijft conclusies onderzoekscommissie Baud press release by the VU 23-092013 Board of trustees VU endorses conclusions research
committee Baud
Dutch original:"Het College van Bestuur van de VU is
van mening dat de commissie Baud uiterst zorgvuldig en
grondig te werk is gegaan en langs navolgbare en logische lijnen haar conclusies heeft getrokken. Het College
van Bestuur van de VU heeft met treurnis kennis genomen
van de inhoud van het rapport, waarvan ze de conclusie,
dat professor Bax zich schuldig heeft gemaakt aan wetenschappelijk wangedrag en fraude in de universitaire verslaggeving, onderschrijft.”
English translation:"The Board of trustees of the VU has
the opinion that the Baud committee worked very accurately and thoroughly and came to its conclusions imitably
and logically. The board of trustees was saddened by the
contents of the reports of which they endorse the conlusion that Bax has committed scientific misconduct and
fraud in the accounting of university related data.”
[85] VU gaat internationaal waarschuwen voor Bax by Richard
de Boer, De Volkskrant 25-09-2013, VU will warn internationally against Bax
Dutch original: “De vertaling moet uitgeverijen en redacties waarschuwen voor publicaties van Bax die de toets
van de wetenschappelijke integriteitskritiek niet kunnen
doorstaan.”
English translation: “The translation should warn publishing housings and editors against publications by Bax that
fail the test of scientific integrity. "
[86] Oud-hoogleraar Mart Bax fraudeerde op grote schaal
NRC Handelsblad 23-09-2013, Former professor Mart
Bax committed large scale fraud
Dutch original:"Oud-hoogleraar politieke antropologie
Mart Bax van de Vrije Universiteit heeft verzonnen onderzoeksresultaten gepubliceerd,…"
English translation:"Former professor Mart Bax in political anthropology of the Free University has published invented research results,...”
12
15 NOTES
[87] Gretchen Vogel (31 October 2011). “Dutch 'Lord of the [101] “RETRACTION: Román-Gómez J, Cordeu L, Agirre
Data' Forged Dozens of Studies”. Science. Retrieved 2
X, Jiménez-Velasco A, San José-Eneriz E, Garate L,
November 2011.
Calasanz MJ, Heiniger A, Torres A, Prosper F. Epigenetic
regulation of Wnt-signaling pathway in acute lymphoblas[88] The Mind of a Con Man: Diederik Stapel, a Dutch social
tic leukemia. Blood. 2007;109(8):3462-3469”. Bloodpsychologist, perpetrated an audacious academic fraud by
journal.hematologylibrary.org. 2012-08-16. Retrieved
making up studies that told the world what it wanted to
2013-08-04.
hear about human nature., NY Times, published April 26,
[102] “Roman-Gomez J, Jiminez-Velasco A, Castillejo JA,
2013.
Agirre X, Barrios M, Navarro G, Molina FJ, Calasanz
MJ, Prosper F, Heiniger A, Torres A. Promoter hy[89] “Etter press innrømmet forskeren tidlig i vår at han
permethylation of cancer-related genes: a strong inhadde tilsatt et stoff i ryggmargsvæsken for å oppnå resuldependent prognostic factor in acute lymphoblastic
tater som ville vekke oppsikt og sikre hans posisjon som
leukemia. Blood. 2004;104:2492-2498”. Bloodjourforsker”. Vg.no. Retrieved 2013-03-01.
nal.hematologylibrary.org. 2009-03-05. Retrieved 201308-04.
[90] Altman, Lawrence K. (2006-05-02). “For Science’s Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap”. The New York Times.
[103] “Offenders”. Plagiarism.repec.org. Retrieved 2013-0301.
[91] “Plagiarism”. Cs.technion.ac.il. 2012-05-10. Retrieved
2013-03-01.
[92] Romanian scientists fight plagiarism Nature magazine
[93] Attitudes towards plagiarism ScienceIn
[94] Romanian Prime Minister Accused of Plagiarism Live Science
[104] Stewart WW, Feder N (1987). “The integrity of the
scientific literature”. Nature 325 (6101): 207–14.
Bibcode:1987Natur.325..207S. doi:10.1038/325207a0.
PMID 3808019.
[105] UConn Investigation Finds That Health Researcher Fabricated Data (The Chronicle of Higher Education, January
11, 2012)
[95] Romanian Education and Research Minister Accused of [106] Harvard Dean Confirms Misconduct in Hauser InvestigaPlagiarism iThenticate
tion, Science, August 20, 2010
[96] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mma.850/
abstract
[107] ORI - The Office of Research Integrity. “Case Summaries
| ORI - The Office of Research Integrity”. Ori.dhhs.gov.
Retrieved 2013-03-01.
[97] Weiss RB, Rifkin RM, Stewart FM, Theriault RL,
Williams LA, Herman AA, Beveridge RA. (2000-03- [108] “Office of Research Integrity – 2008 Annual Report”
(PDF) ori.dhhs.gov. p.54 (pdf p.62 of 84) Retrieved 20
18). “High-dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary
December 2014
breast cancer: an on-site review of the Bezwoda study”.
The Lancet 355 (9208): 999–1003. doi:10.1016/S0140[109] "Grad student falsified data", The Scientist, 5 August 2008.
6736(00)90024-2. PMID 10768448.
[110] Cook, Janine Denis. “Good Laboratory Practice versus
[98] Altman, Larry (May 2, 2006). “For Science’s GatekeepCLIA”. University of Maryland, Baltimore. Retrieved
ers, a Credibility Gap”. New York Times. Retrieved
2012-07-12.
2008-03-26. Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed
studies in medical and scientific journals have called into [111] Schneider, Keith (1983-05-11). “IBT Labs’ trial reveals
question as never before the merits of their peer-review
faked data”. In These Times. pp. 3, 6. Retrieved 2012system. The system is based on journals inviting indepen07-16.
dent experts to critique submitted manuscripts. The stated
aim is to weed out sloppy and bad research, ensuring the [112] Ex-UAB researcher’s work may be fake (The Birmingham
News) December 08, 2009
integrity of the what it has published.
[99] Rivera, Alicia (May 20, 2011). “Ciencia china 'duplicada' [113] At Lawrence Berkeley, Physicists Say a Colleague Took
Them for a Ride George Johnson, The New York Times,
en Galicia”. El País.Ingendaay, Paul (June 15, 2011).
15 October 2002
“War die Guttenberg-Affäre denn zu gar nichts gut?".
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
[114] Markta, Tom. “Ohio University Plagiarism”. Retrieved
May 1, 2014.
[100] “Addition/Correction: Prediction of Refractive Index of
Polymers Using Artificial Neural Networks”. Journal of [115] Tomsho, Robert (Aug 15, 2006). “Student Plagiarism
Chemical & Engineering Data 56 (3): 688. 2010-02Stirs Controversy At Ohio University”. Wall Street Jour09. doi:10.1021/je200071p."Addition/Correction: Prenal. Retrieved May 1, 2014.
diction of Prop-2-enoate Polymer and Styrene Polymer
Glass Transition Using Artificial Neural Networks”. Jour- [116] Koeninger, Kevin (August 26, 2010). “AProfessor Says
nal of Chemical & Engineering Data 56 (3): 689. 2010Another Prof Plagiarized”. Courthouse News. Retrieved
May 1, 2014.
02-09. doi:10.1021/je200072e.
13
[117] Pyle, Encarnacion (September 15, 2010). “Plagiarism a [134] “Dr. Andrew Jeremy Wakefield: Determination on Seripersistent problem on campuses”. Columbus Dispatch.
ous Professional Misconduct (SPM) and Sanction” (PDF).
Retrieved May 1, 2014.
General Medical Council. 24 May 2010. Retrieved 10
August 2011.
[118] “Near-Closure of a University Chemist Plagiarism Case”.
ScienceWeek. 1998-03-20. Retrieved 2009-09-08. [The
NSF and Paquette] have apparently agreed to a legally
binding settlement, in which Paquette excludes himself
from receiving any federal funding for the next 2 years,
while NSF agrees not to issue a finding of scientific mis• Broad, William & Wade, Nicholas (1982). Betrayconduct. ... The university’s chemistry department, howers of the Truth. Oxford University Press.
ever, considers the plagiarism charge insignificant, saying
that Paquette’s actions “could be considered sloppy, but
• Kilbourne, Brock K. & Kilbourne, Maria T. (1983).
do not constitute plagiarism by most definitions.”
The Dark Side of Science, Proc. of the 63rd Annual
16 References
[119] “Office of Research Integrity Newsletter” (PDF). Retrieved 2009-07-30.
[120] Jeneen Interlandi (2006-10-22). “An Unwelcome Discovery”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2012-11-29.
[121] “Tenth Potti retraction appears, in Clinical Cancer Research | Retraction Watch”.
Retractionwatch.wordpress.com. Retrieved 2013-03-01.
[122] "Top Pain Scientist Fabricated Data in Studies, Hospital
Says", Wall Street Journal, 11 March 2009.
[123] “Nih Guide: Findings Of Scientific Misconduct”. United
States Department of Health and Human Services. 200112-13. Retrieved 2009-09-08. NOTICE: NOT-OD-02020
[124] Bridget Murray (February 2002). “Research fraud needn't
happen at all”. Monitor on Psychology (American Psychological Association) 33 (2). Retrieved 2009-09-08.
Meeting of the Pacific Division, AAAS, April 30,
1983.
• Claus Emmeche. “An old and a recent example of
scientific fraud” (PowerPoint). Retrieved 2007-0518.
• Mounir Errami, Justin M. Hicks, Wayne Fisher,
David Trusty, Jonathan D. Wren, Tara C. Long, and
Harold R. Garner. (2007). “Déjà vu – A Study
of Duplicate Citations in Medline”. Bioinformatics,
December 2007.
• Kochan Carol Ann, Budd John M (1992). “The persistence of fraud in the literature: The Darsee Case”.
Journal of the American Society for Information
Science 43 (7): 488–493. doi:10.1002/(sici)10974571(199208)43:7<488::aid-asi3>3.0.co;2-7.
[125] "\Jacobson, Jennifer. “A Psychology Professor Resigns
Amid Accusations of Research Fraud at”. Albany.edu.
2001-08-10. Retrieved 2013-03-01.
• Koocher Gerald P., Keith-Spiegel Patricia (2010).
“Peers Nip Misconduct in the Bud”. Nature 466
(7305): 438–440. Bibcode:2010Natur.466..438K.
doi:10.1038/466438a.
[126] Linda B. Blackford (2012-11-26). “University of Kentucky researcher accused of falsifying data for a decade”.
Lexington Herald-Leader. Retrieved 2012-11-29.
• Patricia Keith-Spiegel, Joan Sieber, and Gerald P.
Koocher (November, 2010). Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User Friendly Guide.
[127] “Findings of Research Misconduct”. Federal Register 77
(224). 2012-11-20. Retrieved 2012-11-29.
[128] Hick JF (July 1973). “Letter to editor: Sudden Infant
Death Syndrome and Child Abuse”. Pediatrics 52 (1):
147–8. PMID 4724436.
[129] Steinschneider A (June 1994). “Erratum? Prolonged apnea and the sudden infant death syndrome: clinical and
laboratory observations”. Pediatrics 93 (6): 944.
[130] Lucey JF (June 1994). “Woman Confesses in Deaths of
Children”. Pediatrics 93 (6): 944.
[131] “Nih Guide: Findings Of Scientific Misconduct”.
Grants.nih.gov. Retrieved 2013-03-01.
[132] Pravda, Douglas M. “NIH Cites Two Researchers For
Misconduct | The Harvard Crimson”. Thecrimson.com.
Retrieved 2013-03-01.
[133] Reich, Eugenie. “Biologist spared jail for grant fraud”.
Nature. doi:10.1038/474552a. Retrieved 1 May 2012.
• Bratislav Stankovic (2004) “Pulp Fiction: Reflections on Scientific Misconduct”, 2004 Wisconsin
Law Review 975.
• The Mind of a Con Man: Diederik Stapel, a Dutch
social psychologist, perpetrated an audacious academic fraud by making up studies that told the world
what it wanted to hear about human nature., NY
Times, published April 26, 2013
17 External links
• Publication ethics checklist (PDF) (for routine use
during manuscript submission to a scientific journal)
• Scientists exposed as sloppy reporters
• Accountability in Research (journal)
14
18
18
18.1
TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses
Text
• Scientific misconduct Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific%20misconduct?oldid=639162174 Contributors: Tobias Hoevekamp, Stephen Gilbert, Ed Poor, Vignaux, SJK, Dcljr, Karada, Skysmith, William M. Connolley, DropDeadGorgias, Ciphergoth,
GCarty, Rl, Bukowski, Dcoetzee, Ike9898, Maximus Rex, Francs2000, Lumos3, Robinh, Jeremiah, Andries, Fastfission, Niteowlneils,
Canadabear, Nayuki, Andycjp, Beland, Icairns, Rgrg, M1ss1ontomars2k4, Stepp-Wulf, Blanchette, Rich Farmbrough, Vsmith, Vapour,
ArnoldReinhold, R. Durham Evans, Commonbrick, FirstPrinciples, Pilatus, Orlady, Gershwinrb, Sf, Keron Cyst, Xevious, Droob, Paleorthid, Wtshymanski, Tony Sidaway, H2g2bob, KTC, Red dwarf, Ron Ritzman, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Reinoutr, TomTheHand, Tabletop, Matthew Platts, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, Leeyc0, Ems57fcva, Keimzelle, FlaBot, Common Man, GangofOne, Wavelength,
SpuriousQ, Hellbus, KSchutte, EngineerScotty, Dysmorodrepanis, Pproctor, Aeusoes1, ErkDemon, CarlFink, Fydfyd, Figaro, Maunus,
Robost, Bondegezou, MagneticFlux, NeilN, Algae, SmackBot, Tobias Schmidbauer, Verne Equinox, Gilliam, MartinPoulter, Roscelese,
Hgrosser, Royboycrashfan, Lanius, Mhym, Funky Monkey, Archibald Tuttle, BullRangifer, Lambiam, Gobonobo, Peterlewis, Pikipiki,
Vr, Doczilla, Bstankovic, DagErlingSmørgrav, Dreftymac, Colonel Warden, Domitori, Tawkerbot2, Scohoust, Penbat, Cydebot, Anthonyhcole, Xxanthippe, Otto4711, Jayen466, Blaisorblade, Pustelnik, Adam ccfc, Steve Dufour, Davidmack, Ezzthetic, BirdKr, Sidasta,
Delhite, TimVickers, Tillman, Qwerty Binary, Kcowolf, Turgidson, MegX, Wasell, MaxPont, VoABot II, Snaxorb, War on cancer, Cgingold, Noreen martin, Yobol, MartinBot, Nandt1, Lloannna, Tikiwont, SharkD, Mikael Häggström, AntiSpamBot, Johnfos, Fences and
windows, Belbernard, Guillaume2303, Broadbot, PaulTanenbaum, Duncan.Hull, Eubulides, HiDrNick, Nouse4aname, CMBJ, SpanishBabe, Chansonh, Jaybal71, Ldonat1993, Anchor Link Bot, Jfromcanada, Patupod, Babakathy, Truthbetold17, Peymankhs, Alfons Åberg,
AnteaterZot, Babucke, Ottawahitech, Sjargin, Alexbot, John Nevard, BirgerH, Alastair Carnegie, Neuralwarp, Daughter of Mímir, FlagrantUsername, Addbot, DOI bot, Irbteam, Placeboint4, Fgnievinski, DeanTong, 84user, Seeker alpha806, Apteva, Rainsound, Jrfelton,
Yobot, Legobot II, Yngvadottir, The Earwig, Deva 840, Gongshow, AnomieBOT, Dogwood123, Efa, Materialscientist, Citation bot, Sylwia
Ufnalska, Shadowjams, Ll1324, FrescoBot, Sky Attacker, Unomi, Ladril, Citation bot 1, Pinethicket, Slechte124, LittleWink, Malincrot,
Scientist2, Luabio, Konikula, 10987sa, Lotje, Tara.long, Test84user, RjwilmsiBot, Deewells, John of Reading, Postpostmod, Peashootre,
Dffgd, Alpha Quadrant (alt), Ediacara, Edittoexpand456, RockMagnetist, Will Beback Auto, Humbert1, ClueBot NG, AlbertBickford,
Raymond Ellis, Cntras, Widr, Kant66, Anupmehra, Bibcode Bot, Cold Season, Cheshwrg, Finebaum, Mrsgrey, MrBill3, Xlapyx, BattyBot,
Ankababel, Jennifer.muzyka, W.D., Unruh79, Khazar2, Hildabast, Zingophalitis, Termshook, Sciencecopy, Inphilo, Brirush, Kevin12xd,
Jodosma, Ulenspegel, JHobson3, Monkbot, KH-1, Shinaimai, HITplagiarism and Anonymous: 157
18.2
Images
• File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg License:
CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors:
• Wiki_letter_w.svg Original artist: Wiki_letter_w.svg: Jarkko Piiroinen
18.3
Content license
• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0