Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

A Narrative on The Fabrication of Results in Science


Affiliations
1 Sport Science School of Rio Maior, Polytechnic Institute of Santarém, Portugal
2 University of Beira Interior: Department of Sports Sciences, UBI, Covilhã, Portugal and Research Centre in Sport Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, Portugal
 

Data fabrication is an act of scientific misconduct that affects its transparency and veracity. In this study we identify the main data fabrication problems in scientific research and suggest prevention methodologies. This article is a narrative review of the major articles in fabrication of results in science. The results of this review provide the knowledge that fabrication cases come from most diverse scientific fields. Currently, there is more pressure on scientists to publish. As a result, several studies now report on data fabrication in research. State laws and research ethics committees strengthen relationships to criminalize this type of misconduct that usurps state funds. This study discusses the controversies and complexities of data fabrication in scientific research. Ethics committees must continue their efforts to prevent data fabrication, thus contributing to scientific transparency.

Keywords

Criminalization, Data Fabrication, Scientific Misconduct, Transparency.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Gross, C., Scientific misconduct. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 2016, 67, 393–711.

  • De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S. and Martinson, B. C., Normal misbehaviour: scientists talk about the ethics of research. J. Emp. Res. Human Res. Ethic, 2006, 1, 43–50.

  • Scott-Lichter, D., CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications, in 2012 Update, Wheat Ridge, CO, Council of Science Editors, 2012, 3rd edn.

  • Lawrence, P. A., The politics of publication – authors, reviewers and editors must act to protect the quality of research. Nature, 2003, 422(6929), 259–261; doi:10.1038/422259a.

  • Warner, J., A critical review of the application of citation studies to the research assessment exercises. J. Inf. Sci., 2000, 26(6), 453–459.

  • Qiu, J., Publish or perish in China. Nature, 2010, 463(7278), 142–143; doi:10.1038/463142a.

  • De Meis, L., Velloso, A., Lannes, D., Carmo, M. S. and de Meis, C., The growing competition in Brazilian science: Rites of passage, stress and burnout. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res., 2003, 36(9), 1135–1141.

  • Osuna, C., Crux-Castro, L. and Sanz-Menedez, L., Overturning some assumptions about the effects of evaluation systems on publication performance. Scientometrics, 2011, 86, 575–592.

  • Young, N. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A. and Al-Ubaydi, O., Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med., 2008, 5(10), 1418–1422; doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201.

  • Statzner, B. and Resh, V. H., Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: Potential causes and consequences. Freshw. Biol., 2010, 55(12), 2639–2653; doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02484.x.

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A., Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med., 2005, 2(8), 696–701.

  • Kornfeld, D. S., It’s time for action on research misconduct. Acad. Med., 2018, 93(8), 1103.

  • Lamborelle, A. and Álvarez, L., How much money goes into Europe’s universities? Euractiv [consult. a 24.05.2018], 2016; https://www.euractiv.com/section/education/infographic/how-much-money-goes-into-europes-universities/

  • Stroebe, W., Postmes, T. and Spears, R., Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Persp. Psycholog. Sci., 2012, 7, 670–688.

  • Resnik, D. B., Data fabrication and falsification and empiricist philosophy of science. Sci. Eng. Ethics, 2014, 20, 423–431.

  • Brainard, J. and You, J., Rethinking retractions. Science, 2018, 362(6413), 391–393.

  • Pimple, K. D., Six domains of research ethics. A heuristic framework for the responsible conduct of research. Sci. Eng. Ethics, 2002, 8(2), 191–205; PMID:12092490.

  • Jaffer, U. and Cameron, A. E., Deceit and fraud in medical research. Int. J. Surg., 2006, 4(2), 122–126.

  • Markham, A., Fabrication as ethical practice. Inf. Commun. Soc., 2012, 15(3), 334–353.

  • Resnik, D. B. and Dinse, G. E., Scientific corrections and retractions related to misconduct findings. J. Med. Ethics, 2012, 39, 46– 50.

  • Broad, W. and Wade, N., Betrayers of the Truth, Simon & Shuster, Inc. Publishers, New York, 1982.

  • Corry, L., Renn, J. and Stachel, J., Belated decision in the Hillbert–Einstein priority dispute. Science, 1997, 278(5341), 1270–1273.

  • Shamoo, A. S. and Resnik, D. B., Responsible Conduct of Research, Oxford University Press, New York, 2009, 2nd edn.

  • Steneck, N. H., Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Sci. Eng. Ethics, 2006, 12, 53–74.

  • Anonymous, PhD – club or history? Nature, 2004, 429, 789.

  • Kalichman, M. W. and Friedman, P. J., A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics. Acad. Med., 1992, 67, 769–775.

  • Eastwood, S., Derish, P., Leash, E. and Ordway, S., Ethical issues in biomedical research: perception and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Sci. Eng. Ethics, 1996, 2, 89–114.

  • Swazey, J. P., Anderson, M. S. and Louis, K. S., Ethical problems in academic research. Am. Sci., 1993, 81, 542–553.

  • Titus, S. L., Wells, J. A. and Rhoades, L. J., Repairing research integrity. Nature, 2008, 19(453), 980–982.

  • Fanelli, D., How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? a systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 2009, 4, e5738.

  • Steen, R. G., Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J. Med. Ethics, 2011, 37, 249–253.

  • Bhattacharjee, Y., The mind of a con man. New York Times Magazine, 26 April 2013.

  • Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G. and Casadevall, A., Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 2012, 109, 17028–17033.

  • Margraf, J., Zur Lage der Psychologie. Psychol. Rundsch., 2015, 66, 1–30.

  • Kim, J. and Park, K., Ethical modernization: Research misconduct and research ethics reforms in Korea following the Hwang affair.nSci. Eng. Ethics, 2013, 19(2), 355–380.

  • Motyl, M. et al., The state of social and personality science: Rotten to the core, not so bad, getting better, or getting worse?

  • J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 2017, 113, 34–58; https://doi.org/10.1037/ pspa0000084.

  • Nuijten, M. B., Hartgerink, C. H., van Assen M. A., Epskamp, S. and Wicherts, J. M., The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013). Behav. Res. Methods, 2016, 48, 1205–1226.

  • Mullins, B. and Nicas, J., Paying Professors: Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign. The Wall Street J., 2017 [Consult. a 26.2.2021]. Disponível em; https://www.wsj.com/articles/payingprofessorsinside-googles-academic-influence-campaign-1499785-286

  • Oehmke, P., The Three Students Who Uncovered Dieselgate, Spiegel Online, 2017 [Consult. a 24.5.2018]. Disponível em; http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/the-three-students-whodiscovereddieselgate-a-1173686.html

  • Ana, J., Koehlmoos, T., Smith, R. and Yan, L. L., Research misconduct in low and middle-income countries. PLoS Med., 2013, 10(3), e1001315.

  • Resnik, D. B. and Master, Z., Policies and initiatives aimed at addressing research misconduct in high-income countries. PLoS Med., 2013, 10(3), e1001406.

  • Redman, B. K. and Caplan, A. L., Off with their heads: the need to criminalize some forms of scientific misconduct. The J. Law, Med., 2005, 33(2), 345–348.

  • Gammon, E. and Franzini, L., Research misconduct oversight: Defining case costs. J. Health Care Finance, 2013, 40, 75–99.

  • O’Leary, P., Policing research misconduct. Albany Law J. Sci. Technol., 2015, 25, 39–93.

  • Stern, A. M., Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G. and Fang, F. C., Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. eLife, 2014, 3, e02956; doi:10.7554/eLife.02956.

  • Godlee, F., Smith, J. and Marcovitch, H., Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ, 2011, 342, 64–66; doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452.

  • Bouri, S., Shun-Shin, M. J., Cole, G. D., Mayet, J. and Francis, D. P., Meta-analysis of secure randomised controlled trials of bblockade to prevent perioperative death in non-cardiac surgery. Heart, 2014, 100, 456–464; doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304262.

  • Oransky, I. and Abritis, A., Who faces criminal sanctions for scientific misconduct? In 5th World Conference on Research Integrity, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 28–31 May 2017, Abstract Book, page 4, O-003.

  • Judson, H. F., The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science, Harcourt Inc, Orlando, FL, 2004.

  • Dalton, R., Obesity expert owns up to million-dollar crime. Nature, 2005, 434, 424.

  • Neibergall, C., Restoring confidence in research integrity. The Lancet Oncology, 2015, 16(8), 871; https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00140-0/fulltext (accessed on 8 December 2020).

  • Gaspar, D. and Esteves, M., Awareness of the Misconduct in Sports Science Research. Ann. Appl. Sport. Sci., 2020, e934; http://www.aassjournal.com; e-ISSN: 2322–4479.

  • Merton, R. K., The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973.

  • Mojon-Azzi, S. M. and Mojon, D. S., Scientific misconduct: from salami slicing to data fabrication. Ophthalmologica, 2004, 218, 1–3.

  • Steneck, N. H., Research universities and scientific misconduct: history, policies, and the future. J. Higher Educ., 1994, 65, 311– 329.

  • Boesz, C. and Lloyd, N., Collaborations: investigating international misconduct. Nature, 2008, 452(7188), 686–687; doi:10.1038/452686a.

  • Fondation européenne de la science, & ALLEA, The European code of conduct for research integrity. European Science Foundation, Strasbourg, 2011.

  • Horner, J. and Minifie, F. D., Research ethics III: Publication practices and authorship, conflicts of interest, and research misconduct. J. Speech, Language, and Hearing, 2011, S346 Research, 54, S346–S362.

  • Bouter, L., What research institutions can do to foster research integrity. Sci. Eng. Ethics, 2020; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948020-00178-5.

  • Degn, L., Integrating Integrity: The Organizational Translation of Policies on Research Integrity, Science and Engineering Ethics. 2020, 26, 3167–3182; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00262-w.

  • Faria, R., Ciência à medida: Conflitos de interesse e interferência na investigação científica financiada. Sociologia [Custom tailored science: Conflicts of interest and interference in commissioned scientific research]. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto., 2018, 36, 97–118; doi:10.21747/08723419/soc36a5.

  • Dal-Ré, R., Bouter, L. M., Cuijpers, P., Gluud, C. and Holm, S., Should research misconduct be criminalized? Res. Ethics, 2020, 16(1–2), 1–12; doi:10.1177/1747016119898400.

  • Pickett, J. T. and Roche, S. P., Questionable, objectionable or criminal? Public opinion on data fraud and selective reporting in science. Sci. Eng. Ethics, 2017; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948017-9886-2.

  • Al-Marzouki, S., Evans, S., Marshall, T. and Roberts, I., Are these data real? Statistical methods for the detection of data fabrication in clinical trials. BMJ, 2005, 331(7511), 267e70.


Abstract Views: 349

PDF Views: 79




  • A Narrative on The Fabrication of Results in Science

Abstract Views: 349  |  PDF Views: 79

Authors

João Freitas
Sport Science School of Rio Maior, Polytechnic Institute of Santarém, Portugal
Dulce Esteves
University of Beira Interior: Department of Sports Sciences, UBI, Covilhã, Portugal and Research Centre in Sport Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, Portugal
Henrique Neiva
University of Beira Interior: Department of Sports Sciences, UBI, Covilhã, Portugal and Research Centre in Sport Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, Portugal

Abstract


Data fabrication is an act of scientific misconduct that affects its transparency and veracity. In this study we identify the main data fabrication problems in scientific research and suggest prevention methodologies. This article is a narrative review of the major articles in fabrication of results in science. The results of this review provide the knowledge that fabrication cases come from most diverse scientific fields. Currently, there is more pressure on scientists to publish. As a result, several studies now report on data fabrication in research. State laws and research ethics committees strengthen relationships to criminalize this type of misconduct that usurps state funds. This study discusses the controversies and complexities of data fabrication in scientific research. Ethics committees must continue their efforts to prevent data fabrication, thus contributing to scientific transparency.

Keywords


Criminalization, Data Fabrication, Scientific Misconduct, Transparency.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv121%2Fi2%2F205-209