Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific Fraud and Other Types of Scientific Misconduct

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reporting and Publishing Research in the Biomedical Sciences

Abstract

A study of 395 retracted papers by journals published in English and indexed in MEDLINE between 1982 and 2002 shows that 107 (27.1%) of these were retracted for scientific misconduct [1]. Similarly, Wager and Williams [2] report that 28% of the 312 MEDLINE English journal retractions (during 2005–2008 and a 1:3 random sampling of those during 1988–2004) were labelled as resulting from scientific misconduct. Many believe that more scientific misconduct in published articles goes undetected.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A scientific protocol should include at minimum the research question/hypothesis (or if appropriate, research aims), study design (including treatment/intervention(s), sample size and inclusion/exclusion criteria), methodology (with detail so that it can be replicated) and data analysis plan (including primary/secondary outcomes and clear definitions of each).

References

  1. Nath SB, Marcus SC, Druss BG. Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes. Med J Aust. 2006;185:152–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wager E, Williams P. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. J Med Ethics. 2011;37:567–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Steen RG. Retractions in the medical literature: how can patients be protected from risk? J Med Ethics. 2012;38:228–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Huth EJ. Responsibilities of coauthorship. Ann Intern Med. 1983;99:256–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kennedy D. Next steps in the Schön affair. Science. 2002;298:495.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. United States CFR Title 45: Public Welfare, Part 689 Research Misconduct.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Smith R. What is research misconduct. In: White C, editor. The COPE Report 2000: Annual Report of the Committee on Publication Ethics. London: BMJ Books; 2000. p. 7. http://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/COPE2000pdfcomplete.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Resnik DB, Stewart CN Jr. Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement. Account Res. 2012;19:56–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; Institute of Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Engineering. On being a scientist: a guide to responsible conduct in research. 3ed ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12192/on-being-a-scientist-a-guide-to-responsible-conduct-in. Accessed 25 May 2015.

  10. Chopra V, Davis M. In search of equipoise. JAMA. 2011;305:1234–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rochon PA, Hoey J, Chan AW, Ferris LE, Lexchin J, Kalkar SR, et al. Financial conflicts of interest checklist 2010 for clinical research studies. Open Med. 2010;4:e69–91.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Parrish D, Noonan B. Image manipulation as research misconduct. Sci Eng Ethics. 2009;15:161–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. TechTerms.com. Metadata. http://www.techterms.com/definition/metadata. Accessed 25 May 2015.

  14. Institute for Basic Biomedical Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medical School. Scientific integrity in the age of photoshop: photoshop and the internet have become invaluable tools for preparing research publications—as well as potential instruments of research misconduct. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institute_basic_biomedical_sciences/news_events/articles_and_stories/employment/2011_01_scientific_integrity.html. Accessed 25 May 2015.

  15. Wager E. How should editors respond to plagiarism? COPE discussion paper. 2011. http://publicationethics.org/files/COPE_plagiarism_discussion_%20doc_26%20Apr%2011.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Shashok K. Authors, editors, and the signs, symptoms and causes of plagiarism. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011;5:303–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Shafer SL. You will be caught. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:491–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Akst Jef. When is self-plagiarism ok? The scientist [entry posted 9 Sept 2010]. http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/displya/57676. Accessed 25 May 2015.

  19. Fact Sheet. Errata, retractions, partial retractions, corrected and republished articles, duplicate publications, comments (including author replies), updates, patient summaries, and republished (reprinted) articles policy for MEDLINE. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/errata.html. Accessed 25 May 2015.

  20. Miguel R. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: a guide to ethical writing. http://ori.hhs.gov/avoiding-plagiarism-self-plagiarism-and-other-questionable-writing-practices-guide-ethical-writing. Accessed 25 May 2015.

  21. Ochroch EA. Review of plagiarism detection freeware. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:742–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289:454–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:573–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ferris LE, Fletcher RH. Conflict of interest in peer-reviewed medical journals: the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) position on a challenging problem. Neurosurgery. 2010;66(4):629–30. http://www.wame.org/about/wame-editorial-on-coi. Accessed 25 May 2015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. Resolving unreported conflicts of interest. JAMA. 2009;302:198–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Barberger-Gateau P. Failure to report financial disclosure information. JAMA. 2009;302:2433–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Garite TJ, Kim MH. Editors’ note on notice of retraction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205:396–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. ICMJE. Defining the role of authors and contributors. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html. Accessed 25 May 2015.

  29. McHenry L. Of sophists and spin-doctors: industry-sponsored ghostwriting and the crisis of academic medicine. Mens Sana Monogr. 2010;8:129–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Ross JS, Hill KP, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA. 2008;299:1800–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), Toronto, ON, Canada

    Lorraine Ferris

  2. Research Oversight and Compliance, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Lorraine Ferris

Authors
  1. Lorraine Ferris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lorraine Ferris .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery and Liver Transplantation, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Delhi, India

    Peush Sahni

  2. Department of Gastroenterology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Rakesh Aggarwal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The National Medical Journal of India

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ferris, L. (2018). Scientific Fraud and Other Types of Scientific Misconduct. In: Sahni, P., Aggarwal, R. (eds) Reporting and Publishing Research in the Biomedical Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7062-4_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7062-4_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-7061-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-7062-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation