A new survey shows that informal intervention can often avert much irresponsible scientific behaviour, and is not as risky as people might fear, say Gerald Koocher and Patricia Keith-Spiegel.
References
Wenger, N. S., Korenman, S. G., Berk, R. & Liu, H. Evaluation Rev. 23, 553–570 (1999).
Swazey, J. P., Anderson, M. S. & Lewis, K. S. Am. Sci. 81, 542–554 (1993).
Office of Research Integrity. Questions and Answers: 42 CFR Part 93 (2006). Available at http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/QandA.reg.6-06.pdf
Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S. & de Vries, R. Nature 435, 737–738 (2005).
Whitley, B. E. & Keith-Spiegel, P. Academic Dishonesty: An Educator's Guide (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
See also Opinion, page 436 .
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koocher, G., Keith-Spiegel, P. Peers nip misconduct in the bud. Nature 466, 438–440 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/466438a
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/466438a
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Plagiarism in articles published in journals indexed in the Scientific Periodicals Electronic Library (SPELL): a comparative analysis between 2013 and 2018
International Journal for Educational Integrity (2021)
-
How should researchers cope with the ethical demands of discovering research misconduct? Going beyond reporting and whistleblowing
Life Sciences, Society and Policy (2020)
-
The urge to publish more and its consequences
DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (2014)
-
Research: Uncovering misconduct
Nature (2012)
-
Fraud from the frontlines: the importance of being nice
Metascience (2011)