Advertisement

Scientific Misconduct

  • Pieter H. Joubert
  • Silvia M. Rogers
Chapter

Abstract

Without any doubt, fraud, forgery, and any other form of scientific misconduct have always been around. In the past, much of this remained, however, undetected because the tools enabling exposure of such misconduct were largely missing. In recent years, articles on scientific misconduct have become ubiquitous, and even daily newspapers increasingly descend on the subject, frequently using rather provocative headlines. In January this year, the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) stated that “Science fights forgery but nurtures bluff” [13]. The Welt am Sonntag of May 17, 2015, headed their interesting article on scientific misconduct with “Lies from the laboratory” [14]. The author, Thomas Vitzthum, went on to say that deception and fraud are particularly common in disciplines that hold the greatest hope for mankind, such as medical, genetic, or psychological research.

Keywords

Journal Editor Scientific Misconduct Data Fabrication Questionable Research Practice Alleged Misconduct 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 5.
    Rogers SM. Mastering scientific and medical writing. A self-help guide. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Springer; 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 9.
    New shorter Oxford English dictionary. Revised ed. Oxford University Press; 1993Google Scholar
  3. 13.
    Hafner U. Plagiat und Fälschung. Die Wissenschaft bekämpft den Betrug und fördert den Bluff (Plagiarism and falsification. The sciences fight fraud but encourage bluff). Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ); 2015.Google Scholar
  4. 14.
    Thomas Vitzthum. Lüge aus dem Labor (Lies from the laboratory). Welt am Sonntag. 2015;20:4.Google Scholar
  5. 15.
    New Research Misconduct Policies, NSF (PDF). Retrieved 2013.Google Scholar
  6. 16.
    Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One. 2009;4(5):e5738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738. Published online 2009 May 29.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 17.
  8. 18.
    Garfield E. Demand citation vigilance. Scientist. 2002;16(2):6.Google Scholar
  9. 19.
    Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Text recycling guidelines. 2013. Available from: http://publicationethics.org/text-recycling-guidelines.
  10. 20.
    Kwok LS. The white bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism. J Med Ethics. 2005;31(9):554–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 21.
    Wager E. Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? Med Gen Med. 2007;9(3):16.Google Scholar
  12. 22.
    Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Retraction guidelines. 2013. Available from: http://publicationethics.org/text-retraction-guidelines.
  13. 26.
    Retraction Watch. Available from: www.retractionwatch.com.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter H. Joubert
    • 1
  • Silvia M. Rogers
    • 2
  1. 1.PHJ Consult Ltd.PangbourneUK
  2. 2.Mediwrite GmbHBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations