Advertisement

Scientific Misconduct

  • Gideon J. MellenberghEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Scientific misconduct is a very serious threat to research. Scientific fraud and questionable scientific practices are distinguished. Three types of fraud are described. First, plagiarism is the presentation of another’s work as the researchers own, and self-plagiarism is the presentation of a researcher’s previously published work as new. Second, fabrication is the creating of non-existing research or parts of research. Third, falsification is the distortion of truthful information. Researchers apply questionable practices to present a more positive picture of their studies, for example, reporting significant results and not mentioning nonsignificant results. Editors and reviewers apply questionable practices as well, for example, encouraging researchers to apply questionable practices. Fraud is always intentional, but questionable practices are intentional or unintentional. For example, practices that are common in a researcher’s subfield are not meant to mislead. Intentional questionable practices are a type of fraud because they are applied to mislead editors, reviewers, and readers. However, unintentional questionable practices come from lack of knowledge and understanding. Policies to counteract scientific misconduct are described. Education should inform students on ethical standards of research, and teach them to apply correct methods and procedures. Substantive researchers should consult methodologists and statisticians to avoid questionable practices. The publication process should pay more attention to misconduct, for example, by preregistering planned studies, applying text-matching software to detect (self-) plagiarism, adding suspicion of fraud to reviewers’ evaluation criteria, and adding disclosure statements and transparency batches to submitted manuscripts and published articles. Probably, fraud and intentional questionable practices cannot completely be banned, but should be penalized under the law that is applicable.

Keywords

Disclosure statement Fabrication of data Falsification of data Plagiarism Preregistration Questionable editorial practices Questionable research practices Scientific fraud Text-matching software Transparency standards 

References

  1. APA (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  2. Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chambers, C. (2017). The 7 deadly sins of psychology: A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Claxton, L. D. (2005a). Scientific authorship Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutation Research, 589, 17–30.Google Scholar
  5. Claxton, L. D. (2005b). Scientific authorship Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutation Research, 589, 31–45.Google Scholar
  6. Crocker, J., & Cooper, L. (2011). Editorial: Addressing scientific fraud. Science, 334, 1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4, e5738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldacre, B. (2009). Bad science. London: Fourth Estate.Google Scholar
  9. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kidwell, M. C., et al. (2016). Badges to acknowledge open practices: A simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PloS Biology, 14.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456.
  12. LeBel, E. P., Borsboom, D., Giner-Sorolla, R., Hasselman, F., Peters, K. R., Ratliff, K. A., et al. (2013). PsychDisclosure.org: Grassroots support for reforming standards in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 424–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levelt Committee, Noort Committee, & Drenth Committee (2012). Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel. Retrieved from http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/nieuws-en-agenda/finalreportLevelt.pdf.
  14. Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review process. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martin, B. (1992). Scientific fraud and the power structure of science. Prometheus, 10, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., et al. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348, 1422–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pecorari, D. (2013). Teaching to avoid plagiarism. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Piantodosi, S. (2005). Clinical trials: A methodological perspective (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Protti, M. (1996). Policing fraud and deceit: The legal aspects of misconduct in scientific inquiry. Journal of Information Ethics, 5, 59–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Sijtsma, K. (2016). Playing with data—or how to discourage questionable research practices and stimulate researchers to do things right. Psychometrika, 81, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 20, 1–8.Google Scholar
  23. Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 670–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Emeritus Professor Psychological Methods, Department of PsychologyUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations