Abstract
Fraud in science has a long history, with some noteworthy and seminal publications lately scrutinized because of discrepancies suspected of being fraudulent in nature. Scientific misconduct can take many forms; however, all imply a violation of the code of ethical scholarly conduct. It incorporates fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, redundant publication, misrepresenting of data, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research, and misappropriation of research funds. Estimates of the prevalence of misconduct are alarming. The emergence of scientific fraud has huge implications for how researchers, clinicians, colleges, and journals conduct business. The system of peer review, employed by all reputable journals, attempts to certify the scientific validity of a submitted manuscript, but, perhaps controversially, may not be ideally placed to determine research fraud. To combat fraud in research effectively, there needs to be a harmonized international strategy that combines and coordinates the resources of journals, funding bodies, and national scientific bodies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Abbreviations
- BMJ:
-
British Medical Journal
- COPE:
-
Committee on Publication Ethics
- FDA:
-
Food and Drug Administration
- IF:
-
Impact factor
- JAMA:
-
Journal of the American Medical Association
- ORI:
-
Office of Research Integrity
- WADA:
-
World Anti-Doping Agency
References
Al-Awqati Q (2007) Impact factors and prestige. Kidney Int 71:83–85
Anonymous (1969) Definition of “sole contribution”. N Engl J Med 281:676–677
Bailey KR (1991) Detecting fabrication of data in a multicenter collaborative animal study. Control Clin Trials 12:741–752
Bhargava N, Qureshi J, Vakil N (2007) Funding source and conflict of interest disclosures by authors and editors in gastroenterology specialty journals. Am J Gastroenterol 102:1146–1150
Biagioli M (1998) The instability of authorship: credit and responsibility in contemporary biomedicine. FASEB J 12:3–16
Bollen J, Rodriguez M, Van de Sompel H (2006) Journal status. Scientometrics 69:669–687
Chalmers I (2006) Role of systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism: case of Asim Kurjak. BMJ 333:594–596
Claxton LD (2005) Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutat Res 589:17–30
Cyranoski D (2006) Your cheatin' heart. Nat Med 12:490
DeAngelis CD (2006) The influence of money on medical science. JAMA 296:996–998
Ekbom A (2006) Summary of the commission of inquiry's report. Rikshospitalet–Radiumhospitalet Medical Center, Oslo
Evans S (2001) Statistical aspects of the detection of fraud. In: Lock S, Wells F, Farthing MJ (eds) Fraud and misconduct in biomedical research. BMJ Books, London
Farndon JR, Buchler M (1999) Two articles for comparison. Article A: APACHE II score in massive upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage from peptic ulcer: prognostic value and potential clinical applications. Article B: APACHE II score in massive upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage from peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 86:598–599
Farthing MJ (2001) Retractions in Gut 10 years after publication. Gut 48:285–286
Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB et al (1998) Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA 280:222–224
Geggie D (2001) A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards research fraud. J Med Ethics 27:344–346
Hewitt R (1957) The physician-writer's book: tricks of the trade of medical writing. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia
Marris E (2006) Should journals police scientific fraud? Nature 439:520–521
Rogers LF (1999) Duplicate publications: it's not so much the duplicity as it is the deceit. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:1–2
Schein M, Paladugu R (2001) Redundant surgical publications: tip of the iceberg? 129:655–661
Sox HC, Rennie D (2006) Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med 144:609–613
Sudbo J, Kildal W, Risberg B et al (2001) DNA content as a prognostic marker in patients with oral leukoplakia. N Engl J Med 344:1270–1278
Sudbo J, Lee JJ, Lippman SM et al (2005) Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of oral cancer: a nested case-control study. Lancet 366:1359–1366
Triggle CR, Triggle DJ (2007) What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”? Vasc Health Risk Manag 3(1):39–53
Wadman M (2005) One in three scientists confesses to having sinned. Nature 435:718–719
Acknowledgments
We thank Drs. A. Tarrant and V. Tarrant for their invaluable suggestions during the preparation of this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shields, C.J., Winter, D.C., Broe, P. (2010). Fraud in Surgical Research — A Framework of Action Is Required. In: Athanasiou, T., Debas, H., Darzi, A. (eds) Key Topics in Surgical Research and Methodology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71915-1_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71915-1_23
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-71914-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-71915-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)