For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
11
views
38
references
 Top references
cited by
26
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      116
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Understanding Research Misconduct: A Comparative Analysis of 120 Cases of Professional Wrongdoing

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scientists behaving badly.

          Brian Martinson, Melissa Anderson, Raymond de Vries (2005)
          Article 0 comments Cited 264 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Repairing research integrity.

            Sandra Titus, James A. Wells, Lawrence J. Rhoades (2008)
            Article 0 comments Cited 61 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A Sensemaking Approach to Ethics Training for Scientists: Preliminary Evidence of Training Effectiveness.

              L D Devenport, John T Murphy, Alison L. Antes … (2008)
              In recent years, we have seen a new concern with ethics training for research and development professionals. Although ethics training has become more common, the effectiveness of the training being provided is open to question. In the present effort, a new ethics training course was developed that stresses the importance of the strategies people apply to make sense of ethical problems. The effectiveness of this training was assessed in a sample of 59 doctoral students working in the biological and social sciences using a pre-post design with follow-up, and a series of ethical decision-making measures serving as the outcome variable. Results showed that this training not only led to sizable gains in ethical decision-making, but that these gains were maintained over time. The implications of these findings for ethics training in the sciences are discussed.
              Article 0 comments Cited 57 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Account Res
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Account Res
                Journal ID (publisher-id): gacr
                Title: Accountability in Research
                Publisher: Taylor & Francis
                ISSN (Print): 0898-9621
                ISSN (Electronic): 1545-5815
                Publication date (Electronic): 12 September 2013
                Publication date (Print): September 2013
                Volume: 20
                Issue: 5-6
                Pages: 320-338
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Bander Center for Medical Business Ethics, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
                [2 ] Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
                [3 ] Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
                [4 ] Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to James M. DuBois, D.Sc., Ph.D., Bander Center for Medical Business Ethics, Salus Building 5th Floor, 3545 Lafayette Ave, St. Louis, MO 63104, USA. E-mail: duboisjm@ 123456slu.edu
                Article
                DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822248
                PMC ID: 3805450
                PubMed ID: 24028480
                SO-VID: 9b80fc0a-5cb9-4685-91d9-5e0d294551db
                Copyright © © James M. DuBois, Emily E. Anderson, John Chibnall, Kelly Carroll, Tyler Gibb, Chiji Ogbuka, and Timothy Rubbelke
                License:

                This is an open access article distributed under the Supplemental Terms and Conditions for iOpenAccess articles published in Taylor & Francis journals , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Subject: Research Article

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Life sciences
                Keywords: fabrication,falsification,historiometry,plagiarism,professional misbehavior,research misconduct
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Life sciences
                Keywords: fabrication, falsification, historiometry, plagiarism, professional misbehavior, research misconduct

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content116

                See all similar

                Cited by26

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors156

                See all reference authors