- Danish definition: "Intention or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist"
- Swedish definition: "Intention[al] distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other ways."
Three percent of the 3,475 research institutions that report to the US Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Research Integrity, indicate some form of scientific misconduct. However the ORI will only investigate allegations of impropriety where research was funded by federal grants. They routinely monitor such research publication for red flags and their investigation is subject to a statute of limitations. Other private organizations like the Committee of Medical Journal Editors (COJE) can only police their own members.
The validity of the methods and results of scientific papers are often scrutinized in journal clubs. In this venue, members can decide amongst themselves with the help of peers if a scientific paper's ethical standards are met.
Motivation to commit scientific misconduct
According to David Goodstein of Caltech, there are motivators for scientists to commit misconduct, which are briefly summarised here.
- Career pressure
- Science is still a very strongly career-driven discipline. Scientists depend on a good reputation to receive ongoing support and funding, and a good reputation relies largely on the publication of high-profile scientific papers. Hence, there is a strong imperative to "publish or perish". Clearly, this may motivate desperate (or fame-hungry) scientists to fabricate results.
- Ease of fabrication
- In many scientific fields, results are often difficult to reproduce accurately, being obscured by noise, artifacts, and other extraneous data. That means that even if a scientist does falsify data, they can expect to get away with it – or at least claim innocence if their results conflict with others in the same field. There are no "scientific police" who are trained to fight scientific crimes; all investigations are made by experts in science but amateurs in dealing with criminals. It is relatively easy to cheat although difficult to know exactly how many scientists fabricate data.
Forms of scientific misconduct
The U.S. National Science Foundation defines three types of research misconduct: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.
- Fabrication is making up results and recording or reporting them. This is sometimes referred to as "drylabbing". A more minor form of fabrication is where references are included to give arguments the appearance of widespread acceptance, but are actually fake, or do not support the argument.
- 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.
- Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas,
processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. One form
is the appropriation of the ideas and results of others, and publishing
as to make it appear the author had performed all the work under which
the data was obtained. A subset is citation plagiarism – willful
or negligent failure to appropriately credit other or prior discoverers,
so as to give an improper impression of priority. This is also known
as, "citation amnesia", the "disregard syndrome" and "bibliographic
negligence".
Arguably, this is the most common type of scientific misconduct.
Sometimes it is difficult to guess whether authors intentionally ignored
a highly relevant cite or lacked knowledge of the prior work.
Discovery credit can also be inadvertently reassigned from the original
discoverer to a better-known researcher. This is a special case of the Matthew effect.
- Plagiarism-fabrication – the act of taking an unrelated figure from an unrelated publication and reproducing it exactly in a new publication, claiming that it represents new data.
- Self-plagiarism – or multiple publication of the same content with different titles or in different journals is sometimes also considered misconduct; scientific journals explicitly ask authors not to do this. It is referred to as "salami" (i.e. many identical slices) in the jargon of medical journal editors. According to some editors this includes publishing the same article in a different language.
Other types of research misconduct are also recognized:
- Ghostwriting – the phenomenon where someone other than the named author(s) makes a major contribution. Typically, this is done to mask contributions from authors with a conflict of interest.
- Conversely, research misconduct is not limited to not listing authorship, but also includes the act of conferring authorship on those that have not made substantial contributions to the research. This is done by senior researchers who muscle their way onto the papers of inexperienced junior researchers as well as others that stack authorship in an effort to guarantee publication. This is much harder to prove due to a lack of consistency in defining "authorship" or "substantial contribution".
Photo manipulation
Compared
to other forms of scientific misconduct, image fraud (manipulation of
images to distort their meaning) is of particular interest since it can
frequently be detected by external parties. In 2006, the Journal of Cell Biology gained publicity for instituting tests to detect photo manipulation in papers that were being considered for publication. This was in response to the increased usage of programs such as Adobe Photoshop by scientists, which facilitate photo manipulation. Since then more publishers, including the Nature Publishing Group,
have instituted similar tests and require authors to minimize and
specify the extent of photo manipulation when a manuscript is submitted
for publication. However, there is little evidence to indicate that such
tests are applied rigorously. One Nature paper published in 2009 has subsequently been reported to contain around 20 separate instances of image fraud.
Although the type of manipulation that is allowed can depend
greatly on the type of experiment that is presented and also differ from
one journal to another, in general the following manipulations are not
allowed:
- splicing together different images to represent a single experiment
- changing brightness and contrast of only a part of the image
- any change that conceals information, even when it is considered to be aspecific, which includes:
- changing brightness and contrast to leave only the most intense signal
- using clone tools to hide information
- showing only a very small part of the photograph so that additional information is not visible
Responsibility of authors and of coauthors
All
authors of a scientific publication are expected to have made
reasonable attempts to check findings submitted to academic journals for
publication.
Simultaneous submission of scientific findings to more than one
journal or duplicate publication of findings is usually regarded as
misconduct, under what is known as the Ingelfinger rule, named after the
editor of the New England Journal of Medicine 1967-1977, Franz Ingelfinger.
Guest authorship
(where there is stated authorship in the absence of involvement, also
known as gift authorship) and ghost authorship (where the real author is
not listed as an author) are commonly regarded as forms of research
misconduct. In some cases coauthors of faked research have been accused
of inappropriate behavior or research misconduct for failing to verify
reports authored by others or by a commercial sponsor. Examples include
the case of Gerald Schatten who co-authored with Hwang Woo-Suk, the case of Professor Geoffrey Chamberlain named as guest author of papers fabricated by Malcolm Pearce, (Chamberlain was exonerated from collusion in Pearce's deception) – and the coauthors with Jan Hendrik Schön at Bell Laboratories. More recent cases include that of Charles Nemeroff, then the editor-in-chief of Neuropsychopharmacology, and a well-documented case involving the drug Actonel.
Authors are expected to keep all study data for later examination
even after publication. The failure to keep data may be regarded as
misconduct. Some scientific journals require that authors provide
information to allow readers to determine whether the authors might have
commercial or non-commercial conflicts of interest. Authors are also
commonly required to provide information about ethical aspects of
research, particularly where research involves human or animal
participants or use of biological material. Provision of incorrect
information to journals may be regarded as misconduct. Financial
pressures on universities have encouraged this type of misconduct. The
majority of recent cases of alleged misconduct involving undisclosed
conflicts of interest or failure of the authors to have seen scientific
data involve collaborative research between scientists and biotechnology
companies (Nemeroff, Blumsohn).
Responsibilities of research institutions
In
general, defining whether an individual is guilty of misconduct
requires a detailed investigation by the individual's employing academic
institution. Such investigations require detailed and rigorous
processes and can be extremely costly. Furthermore, the more senior the
individual under suspicion, the more likely it is that conflicts of
interest will compromise the investigation. In many countries (with the
notable exception of the United States) acquisition of funds on the
basis of fraudulent data is not a legal offence and there is
consequently no regulator to oversee investigations into alleged
research misconduct. Universities therefore have few incentives to
investigate allegations in a robust manner, or act on the findings of
such investigations if they vindicate the allegation.
Well publicised cases illustrate the potential role that senior
academics in research institutions play in concealing scientific
misconduct. A King's College (London) internal investigation showed
research findings from one of their researchers to be 'at best
unreliable, and in many cases spurious'
but the college took no action, such as retracting relevant published
research or preventing further episodes from occurring. It was only 10
years later, when an entirely separate form of misconduct by the same
individual was being investigated by the General Medical Council, that the internal report came to light.
In a more recent case
an internal investigation at the National Centre for Cell Science
(NCCS), Pune determined that there was evidence of misconduct by Dr. Gopal Kundu,
but an external committee was then organised which dismissed the
allegation, and the NCCS issued a memorandum exonerating the authors of
all charges of misconduct. Undeterred by the NCCS exoneration, the
relevant journal (Journal of Biological Chemistry) withdrew the paper based on its own analysis.
Responsibilities of uninvolved scientific colleagues
Some
academics believe that scientific colleagues who suspect scientific
misconduct should consider taking informal action themselves, or
reporting their concerns.
This question is of great importance since much research suggests that
it is very difficult for people to act or come forward when they see
unacceptable behavior, unless they have help from their organizations. A
"User-friendly Guide," and the existence of a confidential organizational ombudsman may help people who are uncertain about what to do, or afraid of bad consequences for their speaking up.
Responsibility of journals
Journals
are responsible for safeguarding the research record and hence have a
critical role in dealing with suspected misconduct. This is recognised
by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) which has issued clear guidelines on the form (e.g. retraction) that concerns over the research record should take.
- The COPE guidelines state that journal editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error). Retraction is also appropriate in cases of redundant publication, plagiarism and unethical research.
- Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors, there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors' institution will not investigate the case, they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive, or an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.
- Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error), or the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).
Evidence emerged in 2012 that journals learning of cases where there
is strong evidence of possible misconduct, with issues potentially
affecting a large portion of the findings, frequently fail to issue an
expression of concern or correspond with the host institution so that an
investigation can be undertaken. In one case the Journal of Clinical
Oncology issued a Correction despite strong evidence that the original
paper was invalid.
In another case,
Nature allowed a Corrigendum to be published despite clear evidence of
image fraud. Subsequent Retraction of the paper required the actions of
an independent whistleblower.
The cases of Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii in anaesthesiology
focussed attention on the role that journals play in perpetuating
scientific fraud as well as how they can deal with it. In the Boldt
case, the Editors-in-Chief of 18 specialist journals (generally
anaesthesia and intensive care) made a joint statement regarding 88
published clinical trials conducted without Ethics Committee approval.
In the Fujii case, involving nearly 200 papers, the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia,
which published 24 of Fujii's papers, has accepted that its handling of
the issue was inadequate. Following publication of a Letter to the
Editor from Kranke and colleagues in April 2000,
along with a non-specific response from Dr. Fujii, there was no
follow-up on the allegation of data manipulation and no request for an
institutional review of Dr. Fujii's research. Anesthesia & Analgesia
went on to publish 11 additional manuscripts by Dr. Fujii following the
2000 allegations of research fraud, with Editor Steven Shafer stating
in March 2012 that subsequent submissions to the Journal by Dr. Fujii
should not have been published without first vetting the allegations of
fraud. In April 2012 Shafer led a group of editors to write a joint
statement,
in the form of an ultimatum made available to the public, to a large
number of academic institutions where Fujii had been employed, offering
these institutions the chance to attest to the integrity of the bulk of
the allegedly fraudulent papers.
Consequences for science
The
consequences of scientific fraud vary based on the severity of the
fraud, the level of notice it receives, and how long it goes undetected.
For cases of fabricated evidence, the consequences can be
wide-ranging, with others working to confirm (or refute) the false
finding, or with research agendas being distorted to address the
fraudulent evidence. The Piltdown Man
fraud is a case in point: The significance of the bona-fide fossils
that were being found was muted for decades because they disagreed with
Piltdown Man and the preconceived notions that those faked fossils
supported. In addition, the prominent paleontologist Arthur Smith Woodward
spent time at Piltdown each year until he died, trying to find more
Piltdown Man remains. The misdirection of resources kept others from
taking the real fossils more seriously and delayed the reaching of a
correct understanding of human evolution. (The Taung Child,
which should have been the death knell for the view that the human
brain evolved first, was instead treated very critically because of its
disagreement with the Piltdown Man evidence.)
In the case of Prof Don Poldermans,
the misconduct occurred in reports of trials of treatment to prevent
death and myocardial infarction in patients undergoing operations. The trial reports were relied upon to issue guidelines that applied for many years across North America and Europe.
In the case of Dr Alfred Steinschneider, two decades and tens of
millions of research dollars were lost trying to find the elusive link
between infant sleep apnea, which Steinschneider said he had observed
and recorded in his laboratory, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), of which he stated it was a precursor. The cover was blown in 1994, 22 years after Steinschneider's 1972 Pediatrics paper claiming such an association, when Waneta Hoyt,
the mother of the patients in the paper, was arrested, indicted and
convicted on five counts of second-degree murder for the smothering
deaths of her five children.
While that in itself was bad enough, the paper, presumably written as
an attempt to save infants' lives, ironically was ultimately used as a
defense by parents suspected in multiple deaths of their own children in
cases of Münchausen syndrome by proxy. The 1972 Pediatrics paper was cited in 404 papers in the interim and is still listed on Pubmed without comment.
Consequences for those who expose misconduct
The
potentially severe consequences for individuals who are found to have
engaged in misconduct also reflect on the institutions that host or
employ them and also on the participants in any peer review process that
has allowed the publication of questionable research. This means that a
range of actors in any case may have a motivation to suppress any
evidence or suggestion of misconduct. Persons who expose such cases,
commonly called whistleblowers, can find themselves open to retaliation by a number of different means.
These negative consequences for exposers of misconduct have driven the
development of whistle blowers charters – designed to protect those who
raise concerns. A whistleblower is almost always alone in their fight –
their career becomes completely dependent on the decision about alleged
misconduct.
If the accusations prove false, their career is completely destroyed,
but even in case of positive decision the career of the whistleblower
can be under question: their reputation of "troublemaker" will prevent
many employers from hiring them. There is no international body where a
whistleblower could give their concerns. If a university fails to
investigate suspected fraud or provides a fake investigation to save
their reputation the whistleblower has no right of appeal.
Exposure of fraudulent data
With the advancement of the internet, there are now several tools available to aid in the detection of plagiarism and multiple publication within biomedical literature. One tool developed in 2006 by researchers in Dr. Harold Garner's laboratory at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas is Déjà vu,
an open-access database containing several thousand instances of
duplicate publication. All of the entries in the database were
discovered through the use of text data mining algorithm eTBLAST, also created in Dr. Garner's laboratory. The creation of Déjà vu
and the subsequent classification of several hundred articles contained
therein have ignited much discussion in the scientific community
concerning issues such as ethical behavior, journal standards, and intellectual copyright. Studies on this database have been published in journals such as Nature and Science, among others.
Other tools which may be used to detect fraudulent data include error analysis.
Measurements generally have a small amount of error, and repeated
measurements of the same item will generally result in slight
differences in readings. These differences can be analyzed, and follow
certain known mathematical and statistical properties. Should a set of
data appear to be too faithful to the hypothesis, i.e., the amount of
error that would normally be in such measurements does not appear, a
conclusion can be drawn that the data may have been forged. Error
analysis alone is typically not sufficient to prove that data have been
falsified or fabricated, but it may provide the supporting evidence
necessary to confirm suspicions of misconduct.
Data sharing
Kirby Lee and Lisa Bero
suggest, "Although reviewing raw data can be difficult, time-consuming
and expensive, having such a policy would hold authors more accountable
for the accuracy of their data and potentially reduce scientific fraud
or misconduct."
Notable individual cases
Andrew Wakefield, who claimed links between the MMR vaccine, autism and inflammatory bowel disease. He was found guilty of dishonesty in his research and banned from medicine by the UK General Medical Council following an investigation by Brian Deer of the London Sunday Times.
