Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific Misconduct: Falsification, Fabrication, and Misappropriation of Credit

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Academic Integrity

Abstract

Much published science, especially biomedical science, is not reproducible.

While most of this is likely due to sloppy research practices, part of it is due to deliberate falsification or fabrication of data, i.e., research misconduct. Plagiarism is also a form of misconduct, and although it might not cause errors to enter the literature, it undermines trust, creates inefficiencies, and deters honest researchers from careers in science. While a growing number of papers are being retracted, and the biggest reason for retractions is misconduct, it is not clear whether there is an increase in the incidence of misconduct, an increase in awareness, or both. Authors, readers, reviewers, editors, publishers, and institutions all have responsibilities in detecting and managing misconduct and correcting the literature. To improve the situation, the incentives to fabricate need to be reduced, and rewards for authors, readers, reviewers, editors, publishers, and institutions who do the right thing should be increased. Every country needs to establish research integrity bodies to provide advice and oversight, collect data, and improve codes of practice.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • (1989). On being a scientist. Committee on the Conduct of Science, National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 86(23), 9053–9074.

    Google Scholar 

  • (2003). Retractions’ realities. Nature, 422(6927), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Begley, C. G. (2013). Six red flags for suspect work. Nature, 497(7450), 433–434. doi:10.1038/497433a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483(7391), 531–533. doi:10.1038/483531a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couzin, J. (2006). Scientific publishing. Don’t pretty up that picture just yet. Science, 314(5807), 1866–1868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curfman, G. D., Morrissey, S., & Drazen, J. M. (2005). Expression of concern: Bombardier et al., “Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis”. The New England Journal of Medicine, 343, 1520–1528; 2000. The New England Journal of Medicine, 353(26), 2813–2814. Epub 2005 Dec 2818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doody, R. S., Gavrilova, S. I., Sano, M., Thomas, R. G., Aisen, P. S., Bachurin, S. O., & Hung, D. (2008). Effect of dimebon on cognition, activities of daily living, behaviour, and global function in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Lancet, 372(9634), 207–215. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(1008)61074-61070.

    Article  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. 5710.1371/journal.pone.0005738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(42), 17028–17033. doi:10.11073/pnas.1212247109. Epub 1212242012 Oct 1212247101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature, 515(7528), 480–482. doi:10.1038/515480a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, R. (2004). Vioxx, the implosion of Merck, and aftershocks at the FDA. Lancet, 364(9450), 1995–1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), 30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapoor, A., Yao, W., Ying, H., Hua, S., Liewen, A., Wang, Q.,... DePinho, R. A. (2014). Yap1 activation enables bypass of oncogenic Kras addiction in pancreatic cancer. Cell, 158(1), 185–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, D. (2006). Editorial retraction. Science, 311(5759), 335. Epub 2006 Jan 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knox, R. A. (1983). Deeper problems for Darsee: Emory probe. JAMA, 249(21), 2867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornfeld, D. S. (2012). Perspective: Research misconduct: The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87(7), 877–882. doi:10.1097/ACM.1090b1013e318257ee318256a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. A. (2002). Rank injustice. Nature, 415(6874), 835–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marris, E., & Check, E. (2006). Disgraced cloner’s ally is cleared of misconduct. Nature, 439(7078), 768–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10(9), 712. doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. S., Hill, K. P., Egilman, D. S., & Krumholz, H. M. (2008). Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: A case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA, 299(15), 1800–1812. doi:10.1001/jama.1299.1815.1800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossner, M. (2006). How to guard against image fraud. The Scientist, 20, 24–24.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PloS One, 8(7), e68397. doi:10.61371/journal.pone.0068397. Print 0062013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, A. M., Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., & Fang, F. C. (2014). Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. Elife, 3, e02956. doi:10.7554/eLife.02956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strange, K. (2008). Authorship: Why not just toss a coin? American Journal of Physiology. Cell Physiology, 295(3), C567–C575. doi:10.1152/ajpcell.00208.02008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Noorden, R. (2011). Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478(7367), 26–28. doi:10.1038/478026a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaux, D. L. (2004). Error message. Nature, 428(6985), 799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaux, D. L. (2008). Sorting the good from the bad and the ugly. The Biochemist, 30, 8–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaux, D. L. (2011). A biased comment on double-blind review. British Journal of Dermatology, 165(3), 454. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10546.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wager, E., & Kleiert, S. on behalf of COPE Council. (2012). Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). www.publicationethics.org.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Ivan Oransky for constructive comments and the NHMRC (Grants 1016701 and 1020136) for funding. This work was made possible through Victorian State Government Operational Infrastructure Support and Australian Government NHMRC Independent Research Institute Infrastructure Support Scheme (IRIISS) Grant 361646.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, 1G Royal Parade, 3052, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    David L. Vaux

  2. Department of Medical Biology, The University of Melbourne, 3050, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    David L. Vaux

Authors
  1. David L. Vaux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David L. Vaux .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    Tracey Ann Bretag

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this entry

Cite this entry

Vaux, D.L. (2015). Scientific Misconduct: Falsification, Fabrication, and Misappropriation of Credit. In: Bretag, T. (eds) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_26-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_26-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-287-079-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation