Advertisement

Scientific Fraud and Other Types of Scientific Misconduct

  • Lorraine Ferris
Chapter

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Nath SB, Marcus SC, Druss BG. Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes. Med J Aust. 2006;185:152–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Steen RG. Retractions in the medical literature: how can patients be protected from risk? J Med Ethics. 2012;38:228–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huth EJ. Responsibilities of coauthorship. Ann Intern Med. 1983;99:256–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kennedy D. Next steps in the Schön affair. Science. 2002;298:495.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    United States CFR Title 45: Public Welfare, Part 689 Research Misconduct.Google Scholar
  7. 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. 8.
    Resnik DB, Stewart CN Jr. Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement. Account Res. 2012;19:56–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. 10.
    Chopra V, Davis M. In search of equipoise. JAMA. 2011;305:1234–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parrish D, Noonan B. Image manipulation as research misconduct. Sci Eng Ethics. 2009;15:161–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 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. 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. 16.
    Shashok K. Authors, editors, and the signs, symptoms and causes of plagiarism. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011;5:303–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shafer SL. You will be caught. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:491–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 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. 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. 21.
    Ochroch EA. Review of plagiarism detection freeware. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:742–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:573–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. Resolving unreported conflicts of interest. JAMA. 2009;302:198–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barberger-Gateau P. Failure to report financial disclosure information. JAMA. 2009;302:2433–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garite TJ, Kim MH. Editors’ note on notice of retraction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205:396–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    McHenry L. Of sophists and spin-doctors: industry-sponsored ghostwriting and the crisis of academic medicine. Mens Sana Monogr. 2010;8:129–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The National Medical Journal of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)TorontoCanada
  2. 2.Research Oversight and ComplianceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations