Advertisement

Research Misconduct

  • Arthur L. Caplan
  • Barbara K. Redman
Chapter

Abstract

As defined by US federal regulations for Public Health Service (PHS) agencies (NIH, CDC, etc.), research misconduct means:

…fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
  1. (a)

    Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them,

     
  2. (b)

    Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

     
  3. (c)

    Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

     
  4. (d)

    Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

     

42 CFR 93.103

Keywords

Research misconduct Falsification Fabrication 

References

  1. Asai A, Okita T, Enzo A. Conflicting messages concerning current strategies against research misconduct in Japan: a call for ethical spontaneity. J Med Ethics. 2016;42(8):524–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One. 2009;4(5):e5738.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Jacob M. On the scope and typology of research misconduct: The gaze of the General Medical Council, 1990–2015. Med Law Rev. 2016;24(4):497–517.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Necker S. Scientific misbehavior in economics. Res Policy. 2014;43:1747–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Rasanen L, Moore E. Critical evaluation of the guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity and of their application. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016;1:15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Shuchman M. False images top form of scientific misconduct. Can Med Assoc J. 2016;188(9):645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Additional Suggested Reading

  1. Asai A, Okita T, Enzo A. Conflicting messages concerning current strategies against research misconduct in Japan: a call for ethical spontaneity. J Med Ethics. 2016;42(8):524–7. (Describes Japan’s effort to deal with research misconduct.)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed B, Ahmad A, Herekar A, Uqaili U, Effendi J, Alvi S, Herekar A, Steiner T. Fraud in a population-based study of headache: prevention, detection and correction. J Headache Pain. 2014;15:37. (Provides an example of one field dealing with RM.) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. O’Leary P. Policing research misconduct. Albany Law J Sci Technol. 2015;25(1):39–93. (Explores options for controlling research misconduct, well beyond current policy.) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arthur L. Caplan
    • 1
  • Barbara K. Redman
    • 1
  1. 1.New York University Langone Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations