Understanding Research Misconduct: A Comparative Analysis of 120 Cases of Professional Wrongdoing
Open accessAbstract
We analyzed 40 cases of falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism (FFP), comparing them to other types of wrongdoing in research (n=40) and medicine (n=40). Fifty-one variables were coded from an average of 29 news or investigative reports per case. Financial incentives, oversight failures, and seniority correlate significantly with more serious instances of FFP. However, most environmental variables were nearly absent from cases of FFP and none were more strongly present in cases of FFP than in other types of wrongdoing. Qualitative data suggest FFP involves thinking errors, poor coping with research pressures, and inadequate oversight. We offer recommendations for education, institutional investigations, policy, and further research.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Scientific misconduct occurs in many disciplines and many countries in the world, including Japan, the UK and the USA, as well as many other countries.
“Finally, and most importantly, it cannot be emphasized enough that scientific misconduct occurs in many disciplines and many countries in the world, including Japan, the UK and the USA, as well as many other countries [23–28].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 81
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Meyer W. M. Bernier G. M. Jr. Steneck N. H. Scheetz M. D. Potential cultural factors in scientific misconduct allegations Investigating Research Integrity: Proceedings of the First ORI Research Conference on Research Integrity 2002 Washington, D.C. Department of Health and Human Services 163 166
- Authors
- DuBois, J. M., Anderson, E. E., Chibnall, J., Carroll, K., Gibb, T., Ogbuka, C., & Rubbelke, T.
- Affiliations
- Saint Louis University (US)
- Loyola University Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- DuBois, James M.
- Venue
- Accountability in Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-09-03
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 5-6
- Pages
- 320-338
- ISSN
- 0898-9621 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-5815
- PMC
- PMC3805450
- OpenAlex
- W2140610793
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 7.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Accountability in Research (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000448)
- National Center for Research Resources (R21RR026313, UL1RR024992)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Academic Freedom and Politics
- Keywords
- research misconduct, falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, financial incentives, seniority, research pressure, research integrity policy, medical misconduct
- MeSH terms
- Policy Making, Sampling Studies, United States, Scientific Misconduct
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
