Advertisement

Rendiconti Lincei

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 369–382 | Cite as

Scientific misconduct: the dark side of science

  • Ernesto Carafoli
Today's Topics in Sciences

Abstract

Misconduct in science has always occurred, but has increased dramatically in recent times. A number of reasons have contributed to the phenomenon: the enormous expansion of the population of researchers not accompanied by an equivalent increase of the funds available; the explosive development of research in new geographical areas in which research was quantitatively minor until a few years ago; the proliferation of predatory open access Journals that publish articles without analysis of their merit provided that the Authors agree to the payment of frequently substantial publication fees; the faulty use of statistical analysis of the results, which affects predominantly the biological-medical research in which research variability is intrinsically present. All these reasons have had a role, but the most important among them is the “publish or perish” atmosphere that has now pervaded science, in which publishing a high profile paper is the factor that decides whether a researcher will have a successful career or is forced out of science. A number of technical measures are now increasingly trying to ameliorate the situation, however, only the end of the unhealthy scrambling to publish at all costs, and to do so in the high profile journals that now dominate the world of science will heal it completely and conclusively.

Keywords

Misconduct Fraud Plagiarism Statistical analysis Retractions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge the help of Marta Codato and Andrea Nicoletto for her help with the text and the figures.

References1

  1. Baerlocher MO, O’ Brien J, Newton M, Gautam T, Noble J (2010) Data integrity, reliability and fraud in medical research. Eur J Intern Med 21:40–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Begley CG (2013) Reproducibility: six red flags for suspected work. Nature 497:433–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Begley CG, Ellis LM (2012) Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483:531–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohannon J (2013) Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 342:60–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boultbee AH (1973) The fudge factor. Science 180:1118–1121Google Scholar
  6. Broad W, Wade N (1982) Betrayers of truth. Frauds and deceits in the hall of science. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Carafoli E (2013) A bizarre case of scientific fraud. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 441:529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cokol M, Iossifov I, Rodriguez-Esteban R, Rzhetsky A (2007) How many scientific papers should be retracted? EMBO Rep 8:422–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cokol M, Ozbay F, Rodriguez-Esteban R (2008) Retraction rates are on the rise. EMBO Rep 9:42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eastwood S, Derish P, Leash E, Ordway S (1996) Ethical issues in biomedical research: perception and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Sci Eng Ethics 2:89–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Errami M, Hicks JM, Fisher W, Trusty D, Wren JD, Long TC, Garner HR (2007) Déjà vu—a study of duplicate citations in medicine. Bioinformatics 24:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Errami M, Sun Z, Long TC, George AC, Garner HR (2009) Déjà vu—a database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature. Nucl Acids Res 37:D921–D924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fanelli D (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 4:e5738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fang FC, Casadevall A (2011) Retracted science and retraction index. Infect Immun 79:3855–3859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:17028–17033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fang FC, Bennett JW, Casadevall A (2013) Males are overrepresented among life science researchers committing scientific misconduct. MBio 4:e00640–e00712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feyerabend P (1975) Against method. New Left Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Frankfurter A (2014) Vertrauen ist gut. Kontrolle ist besser, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  19. Grieneisen ML, Zhang M (2012) A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS One 7:e44118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hvistendahl M (2012) China’s publication bazaar. Science 342:1035–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2:e124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ioannidis JPA (2008) Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 19:640–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ioannidis JPA (2013) Biomarker failures. Clin Chem 59:202–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. John LK, Löwenstein G, Prelec D (2012) Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol Sci 23:524–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kalichman MW, Friedman PJ (1992) A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics. Acad Med 67:769–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LeBrain PA, Welles OG (2014) Cuckoo for cocoa puffs? The surgical and neoplastic role of cacao extract in breakfast cereals, Glob J Agric Agric SciGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu SV (2006) Top journal’s top retraction rates. Sci Ethics 1:91–93Google Scholar
  28. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R (2005) Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435:737–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mazieres D, Kohler E (2005) Get me off your fucking mailing list. Int J Adv Comput SciGoogle Scholar
  30. Moran B, Hoover VG, Bestiale S (1997) Diffusioin in aperiodic Lorentz gas. Stat Phys 48:709–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Munk-Jorgensen P (2010) Authors are not criminals and editors should not be policemen. Epidemiol Psichiat Soc 19:193–195Google Scholar
  32. Price DJD (1963) Little science. Big science. Columbia University Press, New York 1963Google Scholar
  33. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K (2011) Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov 10:712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scheckman R (2013) How journals like nature, cell, and science are damaging science. The Guardian, 9 DecGoogle Scholar
  35. Sokal AD (1996a) Transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Soc Text 46(47):2017–2052Google Scholar
  36. Sokal AD (1996b) A physicist experiments with cultural studies. Lingua Franca, May–June: 62–64Google Scholar
  37. Steen RG (2011) Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J Med Ethics 37:249–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC (2013) Why has the number of scientific retraction increased? PLoS One 8:e68397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. The Economist (2013a) How science goes wrong, London (October 19, 2013)Google Scholar
  40. The Economist (2013b) Trouble at the lab, London (October 19, 2013)Google Scholar
  41. Van Noorden R (2011) Science publishing: the trouble with retractions. Nature 478:26–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Westfall RS (1973) Newton and the fudge factor. Science 179:51–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Young NS, Ioannidis JPA, Al-Ubaydli O (2008) Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med 5:e201CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Venetian Institute of Molecular MedicinePaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations