Dishonesty in science
Keywords:
scientific misconduct, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism
Abstract
With the formation of the global network, various information became available to scientists. Scientists and the professional public must be sure that the research of their colleagues is true, objective, and the results of the research are complete. Scientific misconduct can occur in various forms and in all phases of the scientific research process. Usually it occurs in the form of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. Reasons for scientific misconduct can be personal, professional and financial. A special area is the "gray zone" and it consists of data manipulation and selection, errors in quoting references, multiple and "salami" publications, and problematic authorship. The appearance of a violation of the scientific-research code diminishs the reputation of the scientific community, but it also misleads other researchers, which significantly slows down scientific development. Digitalization and technological advances contribute significantly to the rapid detection, elimination and sanctioning of any form of research misuse.
References
1. Gross C. Scientific misconduct. Ann Rev Psychol. 2016;67:693-711.
2. Vučković-Dekić Lj, Radulović S, Stanojević-Brkić N. Dobra naučna praksa–Etički kodeks naučnoistraživačkog rada. U: Vučković-Dekić Lj, Milenković P, Šobić V, urednici. Etika naučnog rada u biomedicini. Beograd: Akademija medicinskih nauka Srpskog lekarskog društva i Medicinski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu. 2002:161-173.
3. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;109(42):17028-17033. PMID: 23027971. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109.
4. Kuroki T. New Classification of Research Misconduct from the Viewpoint of Truth, Trust, and Risk. Account Res. 2018;25(7-8):404-408. PMID: 30427209. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2018.1548283.
5. Djalalinia S, Owlia P, Afzali HM, Ghanei M, Peykari N. A proposed strategy for research misconduct policy: A review on misconduct management in health research system. Int J Prev Med. 2016;7:92. PMID: 27512558. DOI: 10.4103/2008-7802.186227
6. Shuchman M. False images top form of scientific misconduct. CMAJ. 2016;188(9):645. PMID: 27141032. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5241.
7. Vaux DL. Scientific misconduct: falsification, fabrication, and misappropriation of credit. In: Bretag T. (eds) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Singapore: Springer. 2016:895-911. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_26.
8. Ding D, Nguyen B, Gebel K, Bauman A, Bero L. Duplicate and salami publication: a prevalence study of journal policies. Int J Epidemiol. 2020;49(1):281-288. PMID: 32244256. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyz187.
9. Suqing LI. Who is innocent in authorship misconduct?. Dongwuxue Yanjiu. 2016;37(3):117-118. PMID: 27265648. doi: 10.13918/j.issn.2095-8137.2016.3.117.
10. Anđelić S, Banjac N, Čolaković G, Emiš-Vandlik N. Pisanje naučnog članka: UMRID formula. Naučni časopis urgentne medicine Halo 194. 2017;23(1):31-37.
11. Yadav S, Rawal G, Baxi M. Plagiarism-A serious scientific misconduct. Int J Health Sci Res. 2016;6(2):364-366.
12. Debnath J. Plagiarism: A silent epidemic in scientific writing–Reasons, recognition and remedies. Med J Armed Forces India. 2016;72(2):164-167. PMID: 27257327. DOI: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.03.010.
13. Vučković-Dekić Lj. Plagijarizam – najčešća naučna prevara. Naučni časopis urgentne medicine Halo 194. 2016;22(3): 370-377.
14. LaFollette MC. The Evolution of the “Scientific Misconduct” Issue: An Historical Overview (44535C). Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 2000;224(4):211-215. PMID: 10964254. DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1373.2000.22423.x.
15. Bretag T (Ed). Handbook of academic integrity. Singapore: Springer; 2016.
16. Al-Marzouki S, Roberts I, Marshall T, Evans S. The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials: a Delphi survey. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005;26(3):331-337. PMID: 15911467. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2005.01.011.
17. George SL. Research misconduct and data fraud in clinical trials: prevalence and causal factors. Int J Clin Oncol. 2016;21(1):15-21. PMID: 26289019. DOI: 10.1007/s10147-015-0887-3.
18. Johnson DR, Ecklund EH. Ethical ambiguity in science. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22(4):989-1005. PMID: 26169696. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9682-9.
19. Hwang WS, Ryu YJ, Park JH, Park ES, Lee EG, Koo JM, et al. Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science. 2004;303(5664):1669-1674. PMID: 14963337. DOI: 10.1126/science.1094515.
20. Hwang WS, Roh SI, Lee BC, Kang SK, Kwon DK, Kim S, et al. Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Science. 2005;308(5729):1777-1783. PMID: 15905366. DOI: 10.1126/science.1112286.
21. Fusch PI, Ness LR, Booker JM, Fusch GE. The ethical implications of plagiarism and ghostwriting in an open society. The Journal of Social Change. 2017; 9(1): 55-63. doi:10.5590/JOSC.2017.09.1.04 Retrieved from http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/jsc/vol9/iss1/4/
22. McCuen RH. The plagiarism decision process: The role of pressure and rationalization. IEEE Transactions on Education. 2008;51(2):152-156. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2007.904601.
23. Horbach SP, Breit E, Mamelund SE. Organisational responses to alleged scientific misconduct: sensemaking, sensegiving, and sensehiding. Science and Public Policy. 2019 Jun 1;46(3):415-429. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scy068.
24. Ataie-Ashtiani B. World map of scientific misconduct. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(5):1653-1656. PMID: 28653166. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9939-6.
25. Pellegrini PA. Science as a matter of honour: How accused scientists deal with scientific fraud in Japan. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(4):1297-1313. PMID: 28653168. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9937-8.
26. Artino Jr AR, Driessen EW, Maggio LA. Ethical shades of gray: International frequency of scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education. Acad Med. 2019;94(1):76-84. PMID: 30113363. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002412.
27. Hesselmann F. Punishing crimes of the mind: Sanctions for scientific misconduct as a case for the cultural theory of punishment. Theoretical Criminology. 2019;23(4):527-544. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480618756365.
28. Galbraith KL. Life after research misconduct: Punishments and the pursuit of second chances. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2017;12(1):26-32. PMID: 28220722. DOI: 10.1177/1556264616682568.
2. Vučković-Dekić Lj, Radulović S, Stanojević-Brkić N. Dobra naučna praksa–Etički kodeks naučnoistraživačkog rada. U: Vučković-Dekić Lj, Milenković P, Šobić V, urednici. Etika naučnog rada u biomedicini. Beograd: Akademija medicinskih nauka Srpskog lekarskog društva i Medicinski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu. 2002:161-173.
3. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;109(42):17028-17033. PMID: 23027971. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109.
4. Kuroki T. New Classification of Research Misconduct from the Viewpoint of Truth, Trust, and Risk. Account Res. 2018;25(7-8):404-408. PMID: 30427209. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2018.1548283.
5. Djalalinia S, Owlia P, Afzali HM, Ghanei M, Peykari N. A proposed strategy for research misconduct policy: A review on misconduct management in health research system. Int J Prev Med. 2016;7:92. PMID: 27512558. DOI: 10.4103/2008-7802.186227
6. Shuchman M. False images top form of scientific misconduct. CMAJ. 2016;188(9):645. PMID: 27141032. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5241.
7. Vaux DL. Scientific misconduct: falsification, fabrication, and misappropriation of credit. In: Bretag T. (eds) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Singapore: Springer. 2016:895-911. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_26.
8. Ding D, Nguyen B, Gebel K, Bauman A, Bero L. Duplicate and salami publication: a prevalence study of journal policies. Int J Epidemiol. 2020;49(1):281-288. PMID: 32244256. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyz187.
9. Suqing LI. Who is innocent in authorship misconduct?. Dongwuxue Yanjiu. 2016;37(3):117-118. PMID: 27265648. doi: 10.13918/j.issn.2095-8137.2016.3.117.
10. Anđelić S, Banjac N, Čolaković G, Emiš-Vandlik N. Pisanje naučnog članka: UMRID formula. Naučni časopis urgentne medicine Halo 194. 2017;23(1):31-37.
11. Yadav S, Rawal G, Baxi M. Plagiarism-A serious scientific misconduct. Int J Health Sci Res. 2016;6(2):364-366.
12. Debnath J. Plagiarism: A silent epidemic in scientific writing–Reasons, recognition and remedies. Med J Armed Forces India. 2016;72(2):164-167. PMID: 27257327. DOI: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.03.010.
13. Vučković-Dekić Lj. Plagijarizam – najčešća naučna prevara. Naučni časopis urgentne medicine Halo 194. 2016;22(3): 370-377.
14. LaFollette MC. The Evolution of the “Scientific Misconduct” Issue: An Historical Overview (44535C). Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 2000;224(4):211-215. PMID: 10964254. DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1373.2000.22423.x.
15. Bretag T (Ed). Handbook of academic integrity. Singapore: Springer; 2016.
16. Al-Marzouki S, Roberts I, Marshall T, Evans S. The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials: a Delphi survey. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005;26(3):331-337. PMID: 15911467. DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2005.01.011.
17. George SL. Research misconduct and data fraud in clinical trials: prevalence and causal factors. Int J Clin Oncol. 2016;21(1):15-21. PMID: 26289019. DOI: 10.1007/s10147-015-0887-3.
18. Johnson DR, Ecklund EH. Ethical ambiguity in science. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22(4):989-1005. PMID: 26169696. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9682-9.
19. Hwang WS, Ryu YJ, Park JH, Park ES, Lee EG, Koo JM, et al. Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science. 2004;303(5664):1669-1674. PMID: 14963337. DOI: 10.1126/science.1094515.
20. Hwang WS, Roh SI, Lee BC, Kang SK, Kwon DK, Kim S, et al. Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Science. 2005;308(5729):1777-1783. PMID: 15905366. DOI: 10.1126/science.1112286.
21. Fusch PI, Ness LR, Booker JM, Fusch GE. The ethical implications of plagiarism and ghostwriting in an open society. The Journal of Social Change. 2017; 9(1): 55-63. doi:10.5590/JOSC.2017.09.1.04 Retrieved from http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/jsc/vol9/iss1/4/
22. McCuen RH. The plagiarism decision process: The role of pressure and rationalization. IEEE Transactions on Education. 2008;51(2):152-156. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2007.904601.
23. Horbach SP, Breit E, Mamelund SE. Organisational responses to alleged scientific misconduct: sensemaking, sensegiving, and sensehiding. Science and Public Policy. 2019 Jun 1;46(3):415-429. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scy068.
24. Ataie-Ashtiani B. World map of scientific misconduct. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(5):1653-1656. PMID: 28653166. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9939-6.
25. Pellegrini PA. Science as a matter of honour: How accused scientists deal with scientific fraud in Japan. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(4):1297-1313. PMID: 28653168. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9937-8.
26. Artino Jr AR, Driessen EW, Maggio LA. Ethical shades of gray: International frequency of scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education. Acad Med. 2019;94(1):76-84. PMID: 30113363. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002412.
27. Hesselmann F. Punishing crimes of the mind: Sanctions for scientific misconduct as a case for the cultural theory of punishment. Theoretical Criminology. 2019;23(4):527-544. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480618756365.
28. Galbraith KL. Life after research misconduct: Punishments and the pursuit of second chances. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2017;12(1):26-32. PMID: 28220722. DOI: 10.1177/1556264616682568.
Published
2020/08/28
Section
Review articles
Autori koji objavljuju u ovom časopisu pristaju na sledeće uslove:
- Autori zadržavaju autorska prava i pružaju časopisu pravo prvog objavljivanja rada i licenciraju ga "Creative Commons Attribution licencom" koja omogućava drugima da dele rad, uz uslov navođenja autorstva i izvornog objavljivanja u ovom časopisu.
- Autori mogu izraditi zasebne, ugovorne aranžmane za neekskluzivnu distribuciju članka objavljenog u časopisu (npr. postavljanje u institucionalni repozitorijum ili objavljivanje u knjizi), uz navođenje da je članak izvorno objavljen u ovom časopisu.
- Autorima je dozvoljeno i podstiču se da postave objavljeni članak onlajn (npr. u institucionalni repozitorijum ili na svoju internet stranicu) pre ili tokom postupka prijave rukopisa, s obzirom da takav postupak može voditi produktivnoj razmeni ideja i ranijoj i većoj citiranosti objavljenog članka (Vidi Efekti otvorenog pristupa).