Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research Integrity and Misconduct in the Academic Profession

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research

Part of the book series: Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research ((HATR,volume 28))

Abstract

Integrity in research is fundamental to the advancement of knowledge, for the public’s support of research, and the autonomy of the academic profession. Misconduct in the forms of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism introduces error and misrepresentation into the scientific record. This chapter reviews the history of research integrity and misconduct in the United States, as well as the nature and prevalence of misconduct. It then turns to factors associated with misconduct and efforts to promote integrity, which include policy and regulation, normative pressure, codes of conduct, training, and mentoring.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alazraki, M. (2011). The Autism vaccine fraud: Dr. Wakefield’s costly lie to society. Daily Finance. Retrieved May 29, 2012, from www.dailyfinance.com/2011/01/12/autism-vaccine-fraud-wakefield-cost-money-deaths

  • Altman, D. G. (1994). The scandal of poor medical research: We need less research, better research, and research done for the right reasons. British Medical Journal, 29, 283. doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6924.283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. S. (1999). Uncovering the covert: Research on academic misconduct. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Perspectives on scholarly misconduct in the sciences (pp. 283–314). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. S. (2007). Collective openness and other recommendations for the promotion of research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 387–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. S., Chiteng Kot, F., Shaw, M. A., Lepkowski, C. C., & De Vries, R. G. (2011). Authorship diplomacy: Cross-national differences complicate allocation of credit and responsibility. American Scientist, 99(3), 204–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-Funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 853–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. S., & Louis, K. S. (1994). The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Research in Higher Education, 35(3), 273–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. S., Louis, K. S., & Earle, J. (1994). Disciplinary and departmental effects on observations of faculty and graduate student misconduct. Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 330–350.

    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 

  • Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2010). Extending the mertonian norms: Scientists’ subscription to norms of research. Journal of Higher Education, 81(3), 366–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. S., & Shaw, M. A. (2012). A framework for examining codes of conduct on research integrity. In T. Mayer & N. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting research integrity in a global environment (pp. 133–148). Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. S., & Shultz, J. B. (2003). The role of scientific associations in promoting research integrity and deterring research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(2), 269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. S., & Steneck, N. H. (Eds.). (2011). International research collaborations: Much to be gained, many ways to get in trouble. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to garp: An experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70(2), 737–753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angier, N. (1990, April 24). Cultures in conflict: M.D.’s and Ph.D.’s. The New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2007). Personality and ethical decision-making in research: The role of perceptions of self and others. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(4), 15–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 19(5), 379–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antes, A. L., Wang, X., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2010). Evaluating the effects that existing instruction on responsible conduct of research has on ethical decision making. Academic Medicine, 85(3), 519–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, P. (2006). Where are they now? Nature Medicine, 12(5), 492–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazdaric, K., Bilic-Zulle, L., Brumini, G., & Petrovecki, M. (2011). Prevalence of plagiarism in recent submissions to the croatian medical journal. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 223–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebeau, M. J., & Davis, E. L. (1996). Survey of ethical issues in dental research. Journal of Dental Research, 75(2), 845–855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: Economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 747–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Gokhale, M., Yucel, R., Clarridge, B., Hilgartner, S., & Holtzman, N. A. (2006). Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: Prevalences and predictors. Academic Medicine, 81(2), 137–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, S. J. (2001). Mentors, advisors and supervisors: Their role in teaching responsible research conduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(4), 455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braunschweiger, P., & Goodman, K. W. (2007). The CITI program: An international online resource for education in human subjects protection and the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82, 861–864.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braxton, J. M. (1990). Deviancy from the norms of science: A test of control theory. Research in Higher Education, 31(5), 461–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braxton, J. M. (1993). Deviancy from the norms of science: The effects of anomie and alienation in the academic profession. Research in Higher Education, 34(2), 213–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braxton, J. M., & Bayer, A. E. (1996). Personal experiences of research misconduct and the response of individual academic scientists. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(2), 198–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broad, W. J., & Wade, N. (1982). Betrayers of the truth: Fraud and deceit in the halls of science. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, M. E., Vert, A., Kligyte, V., Waples, E. P., Sevier, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Mental models: An alternative evaluation of a sensemaking approach to ethics instruction. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 449–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budd, J. M., Sievert, M. E., & Schultz, T. R. (1998). Phenomena of retraction: Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 296–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulger, R. E., & Heitman, E. (2007). Expanding responsible conduct of research instruction across the university. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 876–878.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, M., & Panicker, S. (2003). Ethics for all: Differences across scientific society codes. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(2), 159–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. (2010). Journals step up plagiarism policing. Nature, 466(7303), 167. doi:10.1038/466167a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Card, J. (2009, February 24). South Korea’s Clone Wars. Foreign Policy. Retrieved July 6, 2012, from www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/02/23/south_koreas_clone_wars

  • Carey, B. (2011, November 3). Fraud case seen as a red flag for psychology research. The New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, A., Hróbjartsson, A., Haahr, M. T., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Altman, D. G. (2004). Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(20), 2457–2465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlier, P., Bridoux, V., Watier, L., Menetrier, M., Lorin de la Grandmaison, G., & Herve, C. (2011). Ethics requirements and impact factor. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(4), 253–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choe, S. (2002, October 27). Discredited cloning expert is convicted of fraud in South Korea. New York Times, p. A-12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chubin, D. E., & Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless science: Peer Review and U.S. science policy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claxton, L. D. (2005). Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Journal of Mutation Research, 589(1), 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cokol, M., Iossifov, I., Rodriguez-Esteban, R., & Rzhetsky, A. (2007). How many scientific papers should be retracted? EMBO Reports, 8(5), 422–423. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on the Conduct of Science. (1989). On being a scientist. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Graduate Schools. (2003). Project on scholarly integrity and the responsible conduct of research. Council of Graduate Schools. Retrieved July 12, 2012 from www.cgsnet.org/scholarly-integrity-and-responsible-conduct-research-rcr

  • Corbyn, Z. (2009, August 20). Retractions up tenfold. Times Higher Education. Retrieved July 11, 2012, from www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=407838

  • Dalton, R. (2005). Obesity expert owns up to million-dollar crime. Nature, 434, 424–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. (2007). Eighteen rules for writing a code of professional ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(2), 171–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. (2008). Thinking through the issues in a code of ethics. New Directions for Higher Education, 142, 55–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 385–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickersin, K. (1997). How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Education and Prevention, 9(1 Suppl.), 15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dominus, S. (2011, April 20). The crash and burn of an Autism guru. The New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • DuBois, J. M., Schilling, D. A., Heitman, E., Steneck, N. H., & Kon, A. A. (2010). Instruction in the responsible conduct of research: An inventory of programs and materials within CTSAs. Clinical and Translational Science, 3(3), 109–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutch social psychologist found to have faked data. (2011). Retrieved July 9, 2012, from www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/8868337/Dutch-social-psychologist-found-to-have-faked-data.html

  • Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Arnaiz, J. A., Bloom, J., Chan, A. W., Cronin, E., & Williamson, P. R. (2008). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One, 3(8).

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, S., Derish, P., Leash, E., & Ordway, S. (1996). Ethical issues in biomedical research: perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(1), 89–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enders, W., & Hoover, G. A. (2004). Whose line is it?: Plagiarism in economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(2), 487–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enserink, M. (2011, November 10). Update: Disgraced Dutch Psychologist returns doctoral degree. Retrieved July 9, 2012 from http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/update-disgraced-dutch-pyschologist.html

  • Executive Office of the President. (2000). Federal policy on research misconduct. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Retrieved July 8, 2012, from ori.hhs.gov/federal-research-misconduct-policy

  • Fadan, R. R., Klag, M. J., Kass, N. E., & Krag, S. S. (2002). On the importance of research ethics and mentoring. The American Journal of Bioethics, 2(4), 50–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4(5), e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States data. PLoS One, 5(4), e10271. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Register. (2000). Notices, 65(93), 30600–30601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feudtner, C., & Christakis, D. A. (1994). Making the rounds. The ethical development of medical students in the context of clinical rotations. Hasting Center Report, 24(1), 6–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, C. B., Fried, A. L., & Feldman, L. G. (2009). Graduate socialization in the responsible conduct of research: A national survey on the research ethics training experiences of psychology doctoral students. Ethics & Behavior, 19(6), 496–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, M. S. (1989). Professional codes: Why, how, and with what impact. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(2–3), 109–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F. (1999). Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes. In J. Braxton (Ed.), Perspectives on scholarly misconduct in the sciences (pp. 162–173). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. F., & Braxton, J. (1999). Self-regulation and social control of scientific misconduct: Roles, patterns, and constraints. In J. Braxton (Ed.), Perspectives on scholarly misconduct in the sciences (pp. 315–330). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R., Weinstein, E., Marincola, E., Rosenbaum, J., & Solomon, F. (2001). Competition and careers in biosciences. Science, 294(5550), 2293–2294. doi:10.1126/science.1067477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, C. L., Barrett, K. A., & Macrina, F. L. (2007). Accountability in Research, 14, 269–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallant, T. B. (2011). Creating the ethical academy: A systems approach to understanding misconduct and empowering change in higher education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, W., Lidz, C. W., & Hartwig, K. C. (2005). Authors’ reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 26(2), 244–251. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2004.11.013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, H. R. (2011). Combating unethical publications with plagiarism detection services. Urologic Oncology-Seminars and Original Investigations, 29(1), 95–99. doi:DOI 10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.09.016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geggie, D. (2001). A survey of newly appointed consultants’ attitudes towards research fraud. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27(5), 344–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giles, J. (2004). Media attack prompts editorial backlash against MMR study. Nature, 427(6977), 765. doi:10.1038/427765a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20(3), 393–398. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02306.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, L. J., & Shamoo, A. E. (1994). Results of a survey on research practices, completed by attendees at the third conference on research policies and quality assurance. Accountability in Research, 3(4), 275–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, D. (2002). Scientific misconduct. Academe, 88(1), 28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, M., & Goldberg, L. (1994). Ethical challenges to risk scientists: An exploratory analysis of survey data. Science Technology Human Values, 19(2), 223–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinnell, F. (2012). Research integrity and everyday practice of science. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9376-5.

  • Gunsalus, C. K. (1998). Presenting the need for whistleblowing: Practical advice for university administrators. Science and Engineering Ethics, 4, 75–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafstad, A. (2006a, January 23). Doctor admits to cheating on more research. Aftenposten. Retrieved 27 March 2008, from www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1204063.ece

  • Hafstad, A. (2006b, June 30). Cheating has international impact. Aftenposten. Retrieved 27 March 2008, from www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1373320.ece

  • Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., & McElreath, R. (2001). In search of homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. American Economic Review, 91(2), 73–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heitman, E., Olsen, C. H., Anestidou, L., & Bulger, R. E. (2007). New graduate students’ baseline knowledge of the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 838–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, D. A., Kerridge, I. H., Hill, S. R., McNeill, P. M., Doran, E., Newby, D. A., & Day, R. O. (2005). Medical specialists and pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research: A survey of the Australian experience. Medical Journal of Australia, 182(11), 557–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, M. (1989, May 14). Did the penalty fit the crime? The New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson, M., Frankel, M. S., & Siang, S. (2003). Scientific societies and research integrity: What are they doing and how well are they doing it? Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(2), 141–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, G., & Hals, A. (1995). Medical investigators’ views about ethics and fraud in medical research. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 29(5), 405–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayaraman, K. (2008). Chemistry’s ‘colossal’ fraud. Chemistry World, 5(4), 10–10. Retrieved July 9, 2012, from www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2008/March/25030801.asp

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. (1999). From denial to action: Academic and scientific societies grapple with misconduct. In J. Braxton (Ed.), Perspectives on scholarly misconduct in the sciences (pp. 42–74). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakuk, P. (2009). The legacy of the Hwang case: Research misconduct in biosciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 545–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalichman, M. (2005). Use and abuse of the internet for teaching research ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 341–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalichman, M. W. (2007). Responding to challenges in educating for the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 870–875.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalichman, M. W., & Friedman, P. J. (1992). A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine, 67(11), 769–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keiger, D., & De Pasquale, S. (2002). Trials & tribulation. The Johns Hopkins Magazine, 54(1), 28–41. Retrieved December 9, 2012, from http://www.jhu.edu/jhumag/0202web/trials.html

  • Keith-Spiegel, P., Sieber, J., & Koocher, G. P. (2010). Responding to research wrongdoing: A user-friendly guide. Retrieved July 9, 2012, from http://www.ori.hhs.gov/documents/Responding_to_Research_Wrongdoing.pdf

  • Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidder, D. L. (2005). Is it “who I am,” “what I can get away with,” or “what you’ve done to me”?: A multi-theory examination of employee misconduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(4), 389–398. doi:10.1007/s10551-004-6713-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintisch, E. (2006, June 28). Poehlman sentenced to 1 year of prison. Science NOW. Retrieved July 6, 2012, from news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2006/06/28-01.html.

  • Koocher, G., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2010). Peers nip misconduct in the bud. Nature, 466, 438–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koocher, G. P., Keith-Spiegel, P., Tabachnick, B. G., Sieber, J. E., & Butler, D. L. (2010). How do researchers respond to perceived scientific wrongdoing?: Overview, method and survey results. Supplementary materials to: Koocher, G., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2010). Peers nip misconduct in the bud. Nature, 466, 438–440. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from http://www.ethicsresearch.com/images/Method_Results_July_22_2010_a.pdf.

  • Koshland, D. (1987). Fraud in science. Science, 235, 141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, A. (2011). Despite occasional scandals, science can police itself. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(16), A72–A72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreutzberg, G. W. (2004). The rules of good science: Preventing scientific misconduct is the responsibility of all scientists. EMBO Reports, 5(4), 330–332. doi:DOI 10.1038/sj.embor.7400136.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFollette, M. C. (1994). The politics of research misconduct: Congressional oversight, universities, and science. Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 261–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. M. (1993). Doing research on sensitive topics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemonick, M. D. (2006). The rise and fall of the cloning king. Time, 167(2), 40–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J. (1983). Negotiating in organizations. In M. H. Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 68–90). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • List, J. A., Bailey, C. D., Euzent, P. J., & Martin, T. L. (2001). Academic economists behaving badly?: A survey on three areas of unethical behavior. Economic Inquiry, 39(1), 162–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loui, M. (2002). Seven ways to plagiarize: Handling real allegations of research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(4), 529–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis, K. S., Anderson, M. S., & Rosenberg, L. (1995). Academic misconduct and values: The departments influence. The Review of Higher Education, 18(4), 393–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macrina, F. L. (1995). Scientific integrity: An introductory text with cases. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macrina, F. L. (2007). Scientific societies and promotion of the responsible conduct of research: Codes, policies, and education. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 865–869.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marris, E. (2006). Doctor admits Lancet study is fiction. Nature, 439, 248–249. doi:10.1038/439248b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E. (2006). Panel: Extensive sudbø fraud. Science, 313(5783), 29–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738. doi:10.1038/435737a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., Crain, A. L., & De Vries, R. (2006). Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 51–66. doi:10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastroianni A., & Kahn J. (1999). Encouraging accountability in research: A pilot assessment of training efforts. Accountability in Research, 7(1), 85–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcgee, R., Almquist, J., Keller, J. L., & Jacobsen, S. J. (2008). Teaching and learning responsible research conduct: Influences of prior experiences on acceptance of new ideas. Accountability in Research, 15(1), 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1942). A note on science and democracy. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1(1–2), 115–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. J., & McMahon, D. (2004). An examination of ethical research conduct by experienced and novice accounting academics. Issues in Accounting Education, 19, 413–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalek, A. M., Hutson, A. D., Wicher, C. P., & Trump, D. L. (2010). The costs and underappreciated consequences of research misconduct: A case study. PLoS Medicine, 7(8), e1000318. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minkel, J. (2003). Scandal rocks a prestigious lab. Popular Science, 262(1), 70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molander, E. A. (1987). A paradigm for design, promulgation and enforcement of ethical codes. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(8), 619–631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montoya, I. D., & Richard, A. J. (1994). A comparative-study of codes of ethics in health-care facilities and energy companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(9), 713–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. (2006). Managing ethics in higher education: Implementing a code or embedding virtue? Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(4), 407–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Murphy, S. T., Devenport, L. D., Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., & Waples, E. P. (2009). Field and experience influences on ethical decision making in the sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 19(4), 263–289. doi:Doi 10.1080/10508420903035257.

    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 making measures: Evidence for a new set of ­measures. Ethics & Behavior, 16(4), 319–345. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1604_4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Waples, E. P., Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., & Devenport, L. D. (2009). Exposure to unethical career events: Effects on decision making, climate, and socialization. Ethics & Behavior, 19(5), 351–378. doi:Doi 10.1080/10508420903035356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the workplace. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institutes of Health. (1986). Special issue: Policies and procedures for dealing with possible misconduct in science. NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, 15(11), 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institutes of Health. (2000). Required education in the protection of human research participants. Retrieved July 6, 2012, from grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-00-039.html

  • National Institutes of Health. (2011). Funding Opportunities & Notices Search. Retrieved July 9, 2012, from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/search_results.htm?text_curr=findings+of+research+misconduct&Search.x=0&Search.y=0&scope=not&year=active&sort=&text_prev=

  • National Science Foundation. (1987). Misconduct in science and engineering research: Final regulations. 45 CFR 689.52 Federal Register, 24466–24470.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General. (2011). Semiannual Report to Congress. Retrieved July 9, 2012, from www.nsf.gov/oig/pubs.jsp

  • Neale, A. V., Northrup, J., Dailey, R., Marks, E., & Abrams, J. (2007). Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(1), 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijhof, A., Cludts, S., Fisscher, O., & Laan, A. (2003). Measuring the implementation of codes of conduct: An assessment method based on a process approach of the responsible organisation. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1–2), 65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Normile, D., Vogel, G., & Holden, C. (2005). Cloning researcher says work is flawed but claims results stand. Science, 310, 1886–1887. doi:10.1126/science.310.5756.1886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Research Integrity. (2004). Introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Office of Research Integrity. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from ori.hhs.gov/ori-intro

  • Park, R. L. (2008). Fraud in science. Social Research, 75(4), 1135–1150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. (1992). Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitt, H. L., & Groskaufmanis, K. A. (1990). Minimizing corporate civil and criminal liability: A second look at corporate codes of conduct. The Georgetown Law Journal, 78, 1559–1654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plemmons, D. K., Brody, S. A., & Kalichman, M. W. (2006). Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(3), 571–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranstam, J., Buyse, M., George, S. L., Evans, S., Geller, N. L., Scherrer, B., et al. (2000). Fraud in medical research: An international survey of biostatisticians. Control Clinical Trials, 21(5), 415–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redman, B. K., & Merz, J. F. (2008). Sociology. scientific misconduct: Do the punishments fit the crime? Science, 321, 775. doi:10.1126/science.1158052.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, S. C., & Crosby, J. R. (2002). Students’ perceptions of whistle blowing: Implications for self-regulation. Medical Education, 36(2), 173–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B. (2007). The price of truth: How money affects the norms of science. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, S. M. (2003). Review of ORI findings of scientific misconduct, May 1992-October 2002. Control Clinical Trials, 24, 190s–191s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, L. J. (2004). ORI closed investigations into misconduct allegations involving research supported by the Public Health Service: 1994–2003. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riis, P. (2001). The concept of scientific dishonesty: Ethics, value systems, and research. In S. Lock, F. Wells, & M. Farthing (Eds.), Fraud and misconduct in biomedical research (3rd ed., pp. 3–12). London: BMJ Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rilling, J., Gutman, D., Zeh, T., Pagnoni, G., Berns, G., & Kilts, C. (2002). A neural basis for social cooperation. Neuron, 35(2), 395–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossner, M., & Yamada, K. M. (2004). What’s in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation. The Journal of Cell Biology, 166(1), 11–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, K. J. (1996). Integrity and misconduct in research: Report of the commission on research integrity. Commission on Research Integrity. Retrieved July 12, 2012, from ori.dhhs.gov/documents/report_commission.pdf

  • Sargent, J. F., Jr. (2011). Federal research and development funding: FY2011 (p. 4). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheetz, M., & Steneck, N. H. (2001). Research integrity research program. Unpublished report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrag, B. (2005). Teaching research ethics: Can web-based instruction satisfy appropriate pedagogical objectives? Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 347–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, W. G. (2008). A massive case of fraud. Chemical & Engineering News, 86(7), 37–38. Retrieved July 6, 2012, from pubs.acs.org/cen/science/86/8607sci1.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S. (2004). Effective corporate codes of ethics: Perceptions of code users. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4), 321–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seppa, N. (2006). Mouth cancer data faked, journal says. Science News, 169(6), 94–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Service, R. F. (2003). More of Bell Labs physicist’s papers retracted. Science, 299(5603), 31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. A., Chapman, D. W., & Rumyantseva, N. (2011). The impact of the Bologna Process on academic staff in Ukraine. Higher Education Management and Policy, 23(3), 71–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. (2010). Retrieved July 8, 2012, from www.singaporestatement.org

  • Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smaglik, P. (2002). Learning from misconduct. Nature, 420(6911), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, F., Parekh-Bhurke, S., Hooper, L., Loke, Y. K., Ryder, J. J., Sutton, A. J., et al. (2009). Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: A meta-analysis of empirical studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(79), doi: Artn 79 Doi 10.1186/1471-2288-9-79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen, G. R. (2010). Retractions in the scientific literature: Do authors deliberately commit research fraud? Journal of Medical Ethics, 10, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steneck, N. H. (1994). Research universities and scientific misconduct: History, policies, and the future. Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 310–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steneck, N. H. (1999). Confronting misconduct in science in the 1980s and 1990s: What has and has not been accomplished? Science and Engineering Ethics, 5(2), 161–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steneck, N. H. (2002). Assessing the integrity of publicly supported research. In N. H. Steneck & M. D. Scheetz (Eds.), Investigating research integrity: Proceedings of the First ORI research conference on research integrity (pp. 1–16). Washington, DC: Office of Research Integrity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steneck, N. H. (2008). Fostering professionalism and integrity in research. University of St. Thomas Law Journal, 5(2), 522–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steneck, N. H. (2010). Research integrity in the context of global cooperation. In M. S. Anderson & N. H. Steneck (Eds.), International research collaborations: Much to be gained, many ways to get in trouble (pp. 9–20). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steneck, N. H., & Bulger, R. E. (2007). The history, purpose, and future of instruction in the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 829–834.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, S. (1999). Do scientists pay to be scientists? (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swazey, J. P., Anderson, M. S., & Louis, K. S. (1993). Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist, 81, 542–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titus, S. L., Wells, J. A., & Rhoades, L. J. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453, 980–982.

    Google Scholar 

  • True, G., Alexander, L. B., & Richman, K. A. (2011). Misbehaviors of front-line research personnel and the integrity of community-based research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(2), 3–12. doi:10.1525/jer.2011.6.2.3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Congress, 99th Congress. (1985). Health Research Extension Act of 1985, PL 99–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). Public health service policies on research misconduct. Retrieved July 8, 2012, from ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Office of Research Integrity 2010 annual report. Retrieved July 6, 2012, from ori.hhs.gov/images/ddblock/ori_annual_report_2010.pdf

  • U.S. Department of Justice. (2005, March 17). Press Release – Dr. Eric T. Poehlman. Office of Research Integrity. Retrieved July 6, 2012, from ori.hhs.gov/press-release-poehlman

  • Vogel, G. (2011). Psychologist accused of fraud on ““astonishing scale”. Science, 334, 579.

    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. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, C., Wymelenberg, S., & Schapiro, R. (1983). Fraud in a Harvard lab. Time, 121(9), 49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, N. S., Korenman, S. G., Berk, R., & Berry, S. (1997). The ethics of scientific research: An analysis of focus groups of scientists and institutional representatives. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 45(6), 371–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, J. (2011). Extent of Dutch psychologist’s research fraud was “unprecedented”. British Medical Journal, 343. doi:d720110.1136/bmj.d7201.

  • Wright, D. E. (2008). Mentoring and research misconduct: An analysis of research mentoring in closed ORI cases. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 323–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H. A. (1977). Deviant behavior and social control in science. In E. Sagarin (Ed.), Deviance and social change (pp. 88–138). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H. A. (1988). The sociology of science. In N. Smelser (Ed.), Handbook of sociology (pp. 511–574). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development, University of Minnesota, 330 Wulling Hall, 86 Pleasant Street, SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Melissa S. Anderson Ph.D., Marta A. Shaw, Erin Konkle & Takehito Kamata

  2. MICHR Research Ethics and Integrity Program, University of Michigan, 127 Grandview Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48103, USA

    Nicholas H. Steneck Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Melissa S. Anderson Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marta A. Shaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicholas H. Steneck Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erin Konkle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takehito Kamata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa S. Anderson Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Policy and, Leadership Studies, University of Iowa, Lindquist Center N491, Iowa City, 52242-1529, Iowa, USA

    Michael B. Paulsen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Anderson, M.S., Shaw, M.A., Steneck, N.H., Konkle, E., Kamata, T. (2013). Research Integrity and Misconduct in the Academic Profession. In: Paulsen, M. (eds) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol 28. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5836-0_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation