Search

An algorithm developed to spot abnormal patterns of citations aims to find scientists who have manipulated reference lists. An algorithm developed to spot abnormal patterns of citations aims to find scientists who have manipulated reference lists., Author(s): Richard Van Noorden Author Affiliations: Signs of 'citation hacking' flagged in scientific papers Scientists who get too many references to their own work inserted in others' papers -- whether [...]

Biological scientists and reviewers of research integrity have similar attitudes about research norms and professional ethics. Researchers surveyed 606 scientists receiving federal research grants and 91 institutional representatives (IRs) to the federal Office of Research Integrity about scenarios of questionable research conduct. Most thought that the creation or falsification of data and plagiarism were very serious unethical actions. IRs proposed more punishment for ethical violations than the scientists. Respondents felt first offenses were less serious than repeat offenses., Context. -- The professional integrity of scientists is important to society as a whole and particularly to disciplines such as medicine that depend heavily on scientific advances for their progress. Objective. -- To characterize the professional norms of active scientists and compare them with those of individuals with institutional responsibility for the conduct of research. Design. -- A mailed survey consisting of 12 scenarios in 4 domains of research ethics. Respondents were asked whether an act was unethical and, if so, the degree to which they considered it unethical and to select responses and punishments for the act. Participants. -- A total of 924 National Science foundation research grantees in 1993 or 1994 in molecular or cellular biology and 140 representatives from the researchers' institutions to the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity. Main Outcome Measures. -- Percentage of respondents considering an act unethical and the mean malfeasance rating on a scale of 1 to 10. Results. -- A total of 606 research grantees and 91 institutional representatives responded to the survey (response rate of 69% of those who could be contacted). Respondents reported a hierarchy of unethical research behaviors. The mean malfeasance rating was unrelated to the characteristics of the investigator performing the hypothetical act or to its consequences. Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism received malfeasance ratings higher than 8.6, and virtually all thought they were unethical. Deliberately misleading statements about a paper or failure to give proper attribution received ratings between 7 and 8. Sloppiness, oversights, conflicts of interest, and failure to share were less serious still, receiving malfeasance ratings between 5 and 6. Institutional representatives proposed more and different interventions and punishments than the scientists. Conclusions. -- Surveyed scientists and institutional representatives had strong and similar norms of professional behavior, but differed in their approaches to an unethical act.

Social Science researchers have contributed to the myth that there is no difference in intelligence levels among different racial and ethnic groups. Some researchers ignored significant data because it did not fit into the accepted belief of genetic equality.

Social advocates sometimes misrepresent and overstate research results in an effort to portray their particular constituency as needing government services. The problem has escalated since the 1960s, because funding is often based on research findings.

Fraud and misconduct in scientific research appears to be increasing since 1980 when several cases were disclosed. Earlier instrances were handled awkwardly, but the scientific community has since mobilized and issued guidelines about responding to allegations of misconduct and about the responsible conduct of research. Scientists, editors and the institutions of science are slowly learning how to cope with this problem.

Rep John Dingell addressed the Massachusetts Medical Society on the topic of misconduct in medical research in May 1992. Dingell heads a congressional committee that investigates scientific misconduct. In one of these cases, the scientist involved was not prosecuted. The accused in another case, Robert Gallo, was held responsible for only a handful of minor violations. These and similar cases have damaged the reputations of scientists in the eyes of the public. Scientific research has become a large-scale competitive enterprise and scientists are sometimes motivated more by financial gain than the search for truth. Institutions and agencies must state clearly what misconduct is and investigate allegations thoroughly and fairly. More effort needs to be focused on preventing scientific misconduct. This may be done by instilling the values of honesty and integrity in future scientists.

This article examines the research misconduct in the context of it being linked to property or company and its justification to protect investment interests. However, the author insists that truth alone should be the criterion in scientific research and scientists have a responsibility to perpetuate the legacy of their predecessors.

Dr Riis provides a cool Nordic analysis of scientific dishonesty and concludes that there is a need for a national independent control body that should take initiatives for strong preventative [...]

Abstract Scientific dishonesty has attracted increased attention around the world during the past three to four decades. Europe became aware of the problem later than the USA, but has within [...]

Fraud in the social sciences colors both the public's perception of research findings and the internal discourse and trust among social scientists. While the problem pales in comparison to larger social issues, it does have important public policy consequences.