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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
APA (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554.
Chambers, C. (2017). The 7 deadly sins of psychology: A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Claxton, L. D. (2005a). Scientific authorship Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutation Research, 589, 17–30.
Claxton, L. D. (2005b). Scientific authorship Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutation Research, 589, 31–45.
Crocker, J., & Cooper, L. (2011). Editorial: Addressing scientific fraud. Science, 334, 1182.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4, e5738.
Goldacre, B. (2009). Bad science. London: Fourth Estate.
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.
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217.
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.
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.
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.
Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review process. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161–175.
Martin, B. (1992). Scientific fraud and the power structure of science. Prometheus, 10, 83–98.
Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.
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.
Pecorari, D. (2013). Teaching to avoid plagiarism. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Piantodosi, S. (2005). Clinical trials: A methodological perspective (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Protti, M. (1996). Policing fraud and deceit: The legal aspects of misconduct in scientific inquiry. Journal of Information Ethics, 5, 59–71.
Sijtsma, K. (2016). Playing with data—or how to discourage questionable research practices and stimulate researchers to do things right. Psychometrika, 81, 1–15.
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.
Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 670–688.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mellenbergh, G.J. (2019). Scientific Misconduct. In: Counteracting Methodological Errors in Behavioral Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12272-0_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12272-0_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74352-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12272-0
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)