Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
3,133
result(s) for
"Scientific Misconduct"
Sort by:
Unreliable : bias, fraud, and the reproducibility crisis in biomedical research
\"Scientists specializing in the in-depth analysis of the published scientific literature have to the conclusion that a large part of the scientific literature covers results that cannot be replicated in other independent laboratories. Scientists take this to mean that the results are unreliable or untrue. In this book, biomedical researcher Csaba Szabo summarizes the causes and consequences of this so-called \"reproducibility crisis\" in biomedical research. The range of causes is wide, from the specificities of the methods used, through various pitfalls in the design of experiments and analysis of experimental data (e.g., confirmation bias), plagiarism and deliberate data falsification, to the systematic publication of fictitious experiments that have never been performed. Through a few blatant examples - e.g. Anil Potti (Duke University); Piero Anversa (Harvard University) - Szabo describes the damaging impact that blatant fraud can have on the development of an entire field of science, and introduces some of the maverick \"science investigators\" - often working in anonymity - who devote their lives to tracking down and exposing scientific fraudsters. The book also answers the questions (a) what individual and systemic factors are involved in allowing these phenomena to occur, (b) why the appropriate steps have not been taken to control them, and (c) what the implications of the crisis are for the future of medicine and, within it, for the development of new drugs\"-- Provided by publisher.
BOOK
More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record
The number of articles being retracted rose sharply this year. Integrity experts say that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
The number of articles being retracted rose sharply this year. Integrity experts say that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Credit: Klaus Ohlenschläger/Getty
A shredder atop a huge pile of shredded paper documents.
Journal Article
Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands
Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. It included questions about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used the randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. 6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and of falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30). We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the “publish or perish” incentive system promotes research integrity.
Journal Article
Science fictions : how fraud, bias, negligence, and hype undermine the search for truth
\"Science is how we understand the world. Yet critical flaws in peer review, statistical methods, and publication procedures have rendered a shocking number of scientific studies useless-or worse, badly misleading. Drawing on surprising new data from \"meta-science\" (the science of how science works), Science Fictions documents the errors that have distorted our knowledge on issues as varied as cancer biology, nutrition, genetics, immigration, education, and extraterrestrial life. Stuart Ritchie's own work challenging an infamous psychology experiment helped spark what's now widely known as the \"replication crisis,\" the realization that many supposed scientific truths cannot be relied upon. Now, he reveals the very human biases, mistakes, and deceptions that undermine the scientific endeavor: from contamination in science labs to the secret vaults of failed studies that nobody gets to see; from outright cheating with fake data to the more common but still ruinous temptation to exaggerate mediocre results for a shot at scientific fame. Yet Science Fictions is far from a counsel of despair. Rather, it's a defense of the scientific method against the pressures and perverse incentives that lead scientists to bend the rules. By illustrating the ways that science goes wrong, Ritchie gives us the knowledge we need to spot dubious research, and points the way to reforms that might save science from itself\"-- Provided by publisher.
BOOK
Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications
A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ~10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
Journal Article
AI intensifies fight against ‘paper mills’ that churn out fake research
Text- and image-generating tools present a new hurdle for efforts to tackle the growing number of fake papers making their way into the academic literature.
Text- and image-generating tools present a new hurdle for efforts to tackle the growing number of fake papers making their way into the academic literature.
Credit: Westend61/Alamy
The hand of a businessman holding a pen and hovering above a doughnut chart printout on table
Journal Article
How big is science’s fake-paper problem?
An unpublished analysis suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of bogus ‘paper-mill’ articles lurking in the literature.
An unpublished analysis suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of bogus ‘paper-mill’ articles lurking in the literature.
Journal Article
Retractions are increasing, but not enough
Retraction Watch has witnessed a retraction boom since its founding 12 years ago. But the scientific community must do much more.
Retraction Watch has witnessed a retraction boom since its founding 12 years ago. But the scientific community must do much more.
Journal Article
Testing Hypotheses on Risk Factors for Scientific Misconduct via Matched-Control Analysis of Papers Containing Problematic Image Duplications
It is commonly hypothesized that scientists are more likely to engage in data falsification and fabrication when they are subject to pressures to publish, when they are not restrained by forms of social control, when they work in countries lacking policies to tackle scientific misconduct, and when they are male. Evidence to test these hypotheses, however, is inconclusive due to the difficulties of obtaining unbiased data. Here we report a pre-registered test of these four hypotheses, conducted on papers that were identified in a previous study as containing problematic image duplications through a systematic screening of the journal PLoS ONE. Image duplications were classified into three categories based on their complexity, with category 1 being most likely to reflect unintentional error and category 3 being most likely to reflect intentional fabrication. We tested multiple parameters connected to the hypotheses above with a matched-control paradigm, by collecting two controls for each paper containing duplications. Category 1 duplications were mostly not associated with any of the parameters tested, as was predicted based on the assumption that these duplications were mostly not due to misconduct. Categories 2 and 3, however, exhibited numerous statistically significant associations. Results of univariable and multivariable analyses support the hypotheses that academic culture, peer control, cash-based publication incentives and national misconduct policies might affect scientific integrity. No clear support was found for the “pressures to publish” hypothesis. Female authors were found to be equally likely to publish duplicated images compared to males. Country-level parameters generally exhibited stronger effects than individual-level parameters, because developing countries were significantly more likely to produce problematic image duplications. This suggests that promoting good research practices in all countries should be a priority for the international research integrity agenda.
Journal Article