Literature DB >> 26168129

Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science.

Wolfgang Stroebe1, Tom Postmes2, Russell Spears2.   

Abstract

The recent Stapel fraud case came as a shattering blow to the scientific community of psychologists and damaged both their image in the media and their collective self-esteem. The field responded with suggestions of how fraud could be prevented. However, the Stapel fraud is only one among many cases. Before basing recommendations on one case, it would be informative to study other cases to assess how these frauds were discovered. The authors analyze a convenience sample of fraud cases to see whether (social) psychology is more susceptible to fraud than other disciplines. They also evaluate whether the peer review process and replications work well in practice to detect fraud. There is no evidence that psychology is more vulnerable to fraud than the biomedical sciences, and most frauds are detected through information from whistleblowers with inside information. On the basis of this analysis, the authors suggest a number of strategies that might reduce the risk of scientific fraud.
© The Author(s) 2012.

Keywords:  fraud; peer review; replication; research integrity; scientific misconduct

Year:  2012        PMID: 26168129     DOI: 10.1177/1745691612460687

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci        ISSN: 1745-6916


  38 in total

1.  Data fraud in clinical trials.

Authors:  Stephen L George; Marc Buyse
Journal:  Clin Investig (Lond)       Date:  2015

2.  Social science. Promoting transparency in social science research.

Authors:  E Miguel; C Camerer; K Casey; J Cohen; K M Esterling; A Gerber; R Glennerster; D P Green; M Humphreys; G Imbens; D Laitin; T Madon; L Nelson; B A Nosek; M Petersen; R Sedlmayr; J P Simmons; U Simonsohn; M Van der Laan
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Fraud and Understanding the Moral Mind: Need for Implementation of Organizational Characteristics into Behavioral Ethics.

Authors:  Petr Houdek
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  Questionable, Objectionable or Criminal? Public Opinion on Data Fraud and Selective Reporting in Science.

Authors:  Justin T Pickett; Sean Patrick Roche
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 3.525

6.  Scientists Still Behaving Badly? A Survey Within Industry and Universities.

Authors:  Simon Godecharle; Steffen Fieuws; Ben Nemery; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 3.525

7.  Correctable Myths About Research Misconduct in the Biomedical Sciences.

Authors:  Barbara K Redman
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.525

8.  A practical guide for studying human behavior in the lab.

Authors:  Joao Barbosa; Heike Stein; Sam Zorowitz; Yael Niv; Christopher Summerfield; Salvador Soto-Faraco; Alexandre Hyafil
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2022-03-09

Review 9.  Significance chasing in research practice: causes, consequences and possible solutions.

Authors:  Jennifer J Ware; Marcus R Munafò
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 6.526

10.  Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities.

Authors:  Caroline Lievore; Priscila Rubbo; Celso Biynkievycz Dos Santos; Claudia Tânia Picinin; Luiz Alberto Pilatti
Journal:  Scientometrics       Date:  2021-05-23       Impact factor: 3.238

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.