Skip to main content
  • 525 Accesses

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.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • APA (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, C. (2017). The 7 deadly sins of psychology: A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton, L. D. (2005a). Scientific authorship Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutation Research, 589, 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claxton, L. D. (2005b). Scientific authorship Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutation Research, 589, 31–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, J., & Cooper, L. (2011). Editorial: Addressing scientific fraud. Science, 334, 1182.

    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, e5738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldacre, B. (2009). Bad science. London: Fourth Estate.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. (1992). Scientific fraud and the power structure of science. Prometheus, 10, 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pecorari, D. (2013). Teaching to avoid plagiarism. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piantodosi, S. (2005). Clinical trials: A methodological perspective (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Protti, M. (1996). Policing fraud and deceit: The legal aspects of misconduct in scientific inquiry. Journal of Information Ethics, 5, 59–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sijtsma, K. (2016). Playing with data—or how to discourage questionable research practices and stimulate researchers to do things right. Psychometrika, 81, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 670–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gideon J. Mellenbergh .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics