Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fraud in scientific publications in the European Union. An analysis through their retractions.

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study analyses scientific fraud in the European Union by examining retractions due to Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism (FFP) where at least one researcher is affiliated to an EU member country. The information on publications retracted due to FFP is based on the records in the Retraction Watch Database up to 31/05/2020 and they are also reviewed in Web of Science. A total of 662 retractions due to FFP were obtained, corresponding to 24.46% of all retractions in the EU. Germany is first in the European ranking for FFP, Holland in the ranking for FF, and Italy in that for Plagiarism. 60.83% of the articles retracted due to FFP are from the Life Science and Biomedicine field. More than 75% of the articles have been published in journals that form part of the JCR and have an impact factor. There is also extensive citation of the retracted documents. Misconduct due to FFP causes a significant loss of resources and reputation, with severe effects for the authors, publishers, and institutions. It is recommended that the EU continue to apply policies and guidelines to harmonise criteria in relation to FFP, as well as to prevent and avoid scientific misconduct.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://retractionwatch.com/.

  2. https://pubpeer.com/.

  3. https://ori.hhs.gov/.

  4. https://erc.europa.eu/.

  5. https://erc.europa.eu/about-erc/erc-executive-agency-ercea.

  6. https://allea.org/.

References

  • ALLEA (2018). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf.

  • Amos, K. A. (2014). The ethics of scholarly publishing: Exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations. Journal of Medical Library Association, 102(2), 87–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists´ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barde, F., Peiffer-Smadja, N., & de La Blanchardiere, A. (2020). Scientific misconduct: A major threat for medical research. La Revue de medicine interne, 41, 330–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2018). Temporal characteristics of retracted articles. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1771–1783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattarcharjee, Y. (2013). The Mind of a Con Man. The New York Times. http://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html.

  • Bhutta, Z., & Crane, J. (2014). Should research fraud be a crime? BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosch, X. (2014). Improving biomedical journals´ ethical policies: The case of research misconduct. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(9), 644–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosch, X., Hernández, C., Pericas, J. M., Doti, P., & Marusic, A. (2012). Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e51928.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brainard, J., & You, J. (2018). What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing´s “death penalty.” Science, 362(6413), 391–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budd, J. M., Coble, Z., & Abritis, A. (2016). An investigation of retracted articles in the biomedical literature. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 53, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budd, J.M., Coble, Z. & Anderson, K. (2011). Retracted Publications in Biomedicine: Cause for Concern. ACRL 2011 Conference Proceedings, 390–395.

  • Campos-Varela, I., & Ruano-Ravina, A. (2019). Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors. Gaceta sanitaria, 33(4), 356–360.

  • Chambers, L.M., Michener, C.M. & Falcone, T. (2019). Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology. BJOG: An international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 126(9), 1134–1140.

  • Chapman, D. W., & Lindner, S. (2016). Degrees of integrity: The threat of corruption in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 41(2), 247–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couzin, J., & Unger, K. (2006). Scientific misconduct. Cleaning up the paper trail. Science, 31(5770), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1126/science312.5770.38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dal-Ré, R., Bouter, L. M., Cuijpers, P., Gluud, C., & Holm, S. (2020). Should research misconduct be criminalized? Research Ethics, 16(1–2), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. S. (2003). The role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 10(3), 189–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. S., Riske-Morris, M., & Diaz, S. R. (2007). Casual factors implicated in research misconduct: Evidence from ORI case files. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 395–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, J. J., & Kerch, H. M. (2000). Evolving research misconduct policies and their significance for physical scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics, 6(1), 109–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, J. M., Anderson, E. E., Chibnall, J., Carroll, K., Gibb, T., Ogbuka, C., & Rubbelke, T. (2013). Understanding research misconduct: A comparative analysis of 120 cases of professional wrongdoing. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 20(5–6), 320–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Research Council (2012). ERC Scientific Misconduct Strategy. https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/ERC_Scientific_misconduct_strategy.pdf.

  • European Research Council (2018). Scientific misconduct cases in 2018. https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/Scientific_Misconduct_cases_2018.pdf.

  • Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2014). Rise in retractions is a signal of integrity. Nature, 509(7498), 33. https://doi.org/10.1038/509033a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender of pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0127556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Goodman, S. (2018). Improving the integrity of published science: An expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 48(4), e12898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2011). Retracted science and the retraction index. Infection and Immunity, 79(10), 3855–3859.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzen, M., Rödder, S., & Weingart, P. (2007). Fraud: causes and culprits as perceived by science and the media. EMBO Reports, 8(1), 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gammon, E., & Franzini, L. (2013). Research misconduct oversight: Defining case costs. Journal of Health Care Finance, 40(2), 75–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, S. L. (2016). Research misconduct and data fraud in clinical trials: prevalence and causal factors. International Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-015-0887-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godecharle, S., Fieuws, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2018). Scientists still behaving badly? A survey within industry and universities. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(6), 1697–1717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2014). Heterogeneity in European research integrity guidance: Relying on values or norms? Journal of empirical research on human research ethics: JERHRE, 9(3), 79–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE, 7(10), e44118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. (2013). Fraud and misconduct in clinical research: A concern. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 4(2), 144–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagberg, J. M. (2020). The unfortunately long life of some retracted biomedical research publications. Journal of Applied Physiology, 128(5), 1381–1391.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, T. (2013). Retraction of global scientific publications from 2001 to 2010. Scientometrics, 96(2), 555–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemmings, H., Jr., & Shafer, S. L. (2020). Futher retractions of articles by Joachim Boldt. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 25(3), 409–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesselmann, F., Graf, V., Schmidt, M., & Reinhart, M. (2017). The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Current Sociology Review, 65(6), 814–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiney, M. (2015). Research integrity: What it means, why it is important and how we might protect it. Mountain View (California): Science Europe. https://www.scienceeurope.org/media/dnwbwaux/briefing_paper_research_integrity_web.pdf.

  • Huistra, P., & Paul, H. (2021). Systemic explanations of scientific misconduct: Provoked by spectacular cases of norm violation? Journal of Academic Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09389-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (IDMJE) (2019). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf.

  • Kalichman, M. (2020). Survey study of research integrity officers´ perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 5(1), 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornfeld, D. S. (2012). Perspective: research misconduct: The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87(7), 877–882.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornfeld, D. S., & Titus, S. L. (2016). Stop ignoring misconduct. Nature, 537(7618), 29–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, D., & Cornelis, G. (2021). Differing perceptions concerning research misconduct between China and Flanders: A qualitative study. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 28(2), 63–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, A. (2018). A scientist´s fraudulent studies put patients at risk. Science, 362(6413), 394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E. (1998). The internet: A powerful tool for plagiarism sleuths. Science, 279(5350), 474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mena, J. D., Ndoye, M., Cohen, A. J., Kamal, P., & Breyer, B. N. (2019). The landscape of urological retractions: The prevalence of reported research misconduct. BJU international, 124(1), 174–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Devenport, L. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., & Antes, A. L. (2006). Validation of ethical decision maker measures: Evidence for a new set of measures. Ethics & Behavior, 16(4), 319–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., & Davenport, L. D. (2007). Environmental influences on ethical decision making: Climate and environmental predictors of research integrity. Ethics & Behavior, 17(4), 337–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noyori, R., & Richmond, J. P. (2013). Ethical conduct in chemical research publishing. Advanced Synthesis & Catalysis, 355(1), 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD, Global Science Forum (2008). Best Practices for Ensuring Scientific Integrity and Preventing Misconduct. http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/40188303.pdf.

  • Parlangeli, O., Guidi, S., Marchigiani, E., Bracci, M., & Liston, P. M. (2020). Perceptions of work-related stress and ethical misconduct amongst non-tenured researchers in Italy. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(1), 159–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, J. T., & Roche, S. P. (2018). Questionable, objectionable or criminal? Public opinion on data fraud and selective reporting in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(1), 151–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pupovac, V., & Fanelli, D. (2015). Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1331–1352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, H., & Anker, S. (2020). Dishonesty and research misconduct within the medical profession. BMC Medical Ethics, 21(1), 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapani, A., Lombardi, T., Berton, F., Del Lupo, V., Di Lenarda, R., & Stacchi, C. (2020). Retracted publications and their citation in dental literature: A systematic review. Clinical and experimental dental research, 6(4), 383–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B. (2019). Is it time to revise the definition of research misconduct? Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 26(2), 123–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B., Rasmussen, L. M., & Kissling, G. E. (2015). An international study of research misconduct policies. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 22(5), 249–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B., & Stewart, C. N. (2012). Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 19(1), 56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro, M. D., & Vasconcelos, S. M. R. (2018). Retractions covered by retraction Watch in the 2013–2015 period: prevalence for the most productive countries. Scientometrics, 114, 719–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roland M. C. (2007). Publish and perish. Hedging and fraud in scientific discourse. EMBO reports, 8(5), 424–428.

  • Samp, J. C., Schumock, G. T., & Pickard, A. S. (2012). Retracted publications in the drug literature. Pharmacotherapy, 32(7), 586–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, J., Ye, D., Hill, A. M., & Whitehorn, A. S. (2020). Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data. Scientometrics, 125, 2877–2913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuai, X., Rollins, J., Moulinier, I., Custis, T., Edmunds, M., & Schilder, F. (2017). A multidimensional investigation of the effects of publication retraction on scholarly impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68, 2225–2236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool, B. K. (2008). Exploring scientific misconduct: Isolated individuals, impure institutions, or an inevitable idiom of modern science? Bioethical Inquiry, 5, 271–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(4), 249–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE, 8(7), e68397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, A. M., Casadevall, A., Fang, Steen RG., & FC, . (2014). Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. Elife, 3, 2956. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavare, A. (2012). Scientific misconduct is worryingly prevalent in the UK, shows BMJ survey. BMJ, 344, e377. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) (2020). Definition of Research Misconduct. https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct.

  • The Retractation Watch Leaderboard (2020). https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/.

  • Theis-Mahon, N. R., & Bakker, C. J. (2020). The continued citation of retracted publications in dentistry. Journal of Medical Library Association, 108(3), 389–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijdink, J. K., Bouter, L. M., Veldkamp, C. L. S., van de Ven, P. M., Wilcherts, J. M., & Smulders, Y. M. (2016). Personality traits are associated with research misbehavior in Dutch Scientists: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE, 11(9), e0163251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trikalinos, N. A., Evangelou, E., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(5), 464–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2012). Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: Guidance from the committee on publication ethics (COPE). Maturitas, 72, 165–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E., & Williams, P. (2011). Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988–2008. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(9), 567–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, J. (2013). Boldt: the great pretender. BMJ, 346, 16–18. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, D. E., Titus, S. L., & Cornelison, J. B. (2008). Mentoring and research misconduct: an analysis of research mentoring in closed ORI cases. Science and engineering ethics, 14(3), 323–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Q., Abraham, J., & Fu, H. Z. (2020). Collaboration and its influence on retraction based on retracted publications during 1978–2017. Scientometrics, 125, 213–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, M., & Grieneisen, M. L. (2013). The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media. Scientometrics, 96, 573–587.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Library and Information Science and Faculty of Medicine, IDEA Lab Research Group, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

    Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca & José Antonio Salvador-Oliván

  2. Department of Library and Information Science, IDEA Lab Research Group, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Rosario Arquero-Avilés

Authors
  1. Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José Antonio Salvador-Oliván
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rosario Arquero-Avilés
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marco-Cuenca, G., Salvador-Oliván, J.A. & Arquero-Avilés, R. Fraud in scientific publications in the European Union. An analysis through their retractions.. Scientometrics 126, 5143–5164 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03977-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03977-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation