GENERAL ARTICLES A narrative on the fabrication of results in science João Freitas*, Dulce Esteves and Henrique Neiva 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 dis- cusses the controversies and complexities of data fabrication in scientific research. Ethics commit- tees must continue their efforts to prevent data fabrication, thus contributing to scientific transparency. Keywords: Criminalization, data fabrication, scientific misconduct, transparency. SCIENTIFIC misconduct does not stop with a decline in Current data show that, the success rate of eligible pro- morality and increase in competition in obtaining posals in the Universities for the year 2015 was only research funds. Instead, very well structured, accusations 14%; as governments decrease funding, the pressure on of scientific misconduct, stand in the history of universities to obtain funding from other sources increas- science itself from ancient Greece to the present day1. es, including the UE and the private sector13. Although the respective federal agencies nuclearize the Data fraud can have four types of external effects14. It concept of scientific conduct to review and disseminate can damage the career of colleagues and students, who research, experts have a more popular view2. According unknowingly co-write articles with a fraudulent re- to the Council of Scientific Editors (CSE), scientific mis- searcher. In clinical cases, patients may suffer due to lack conduct is ‘the behaviour of a researcher, whether inten- of information about the effectiveness of different treat- tional or not, which falls short of a good ethical and ment options. Fraud can slow down scientific progress, scientific standard’3. because researchers waste precious resources (funds as Currently, there is pressure on researchers to publish well as time) trying to follow the clues from dubious frequently and in high-impact journals4. Bibliometric research. Finally, notes on scientific fraud damage the assessment is used to enhance productivity and distribu- image of the field in which the fraud was committed and tion of resources5–8. However, in another way, the finan- reduce the confidence of science. Scientists involved in cial resources available for such efforts are clearly fraudulent research can face adverse social, financial and inadequate. Therefore, competition for these limited legal consequences15. Recently, a study of 10,500 articles funds has created a hostile environment and is highly retracted until 2016 showed that 0.04% was retracted; the favourable to the appearance of scientific misconduct. annual retraction rate was around 1000. The rate of in- The competitive level in science is changing and con- crease is slowing down since 2012, and 43% of the 946 cerns that this may alter scientific knowledge are being articles retracted in 2014 were due to FFP (fabrication, debated9–11. The findings of published research are some- falsification and plagiarism)16. times refuted by subsequent evidence, resulting in confu- Literature on ethics in scientific research shows the sion and disappointment12. Between 2000 and 2017, frequency of production of results, increasing society’s 15,000 articles were published on research misconduct13. lack of trust in the scientific community. Thus, the present study reviews the results of data fabrication in science. João Freitas is in the Sport Science School of Rio Maior, Polytechnic Institute of Santarém, Portugal; Dulce Esteves and Henrique Neiva are in the University of Beira Interior: Department of Sports Sciences, Methodology UBI, Covilhã, Portugal and Research Centre in Sport Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, Portugal. We began with a narrative review of the literature to ana- *For correspondence. (e-mail: [email protected]) lyse data fabrication in science, followed by a synthesis CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 121, NO. 2, 25 JULY 2021 205 GENERAL ARTICLES of the results, combined with a reflective perspective als, equipment or research processes, or altering or omit- from the authors. The study was carried during Novem- ting data or results so that the research is not accurately ber–December 2020 using the databases PubMed and represented in the search log. Google Scholar. The inclusion criteria were (1) complete Plagiarism is qualitatively different from the other two articles and (2) English or Portuguese language. The because it does not distort scientific knowledge, although articles focused on data fabrication in science, on authors it has important consequences on the career of those and their responsibilities on the fabrication and miscon- involved and, therefore, on the entire scientific commu- duct in scientific research and the ways of preventing nity24. them. Exclusion criteria were: (1) abstracts, (2) confer- ence proceedings, (3) general science misconduct articles and (4) books. The search resulted in 56 articles from a The frequency of fabrication in science diversified list of scientific fields. We then synthesized the main concepts on data fabrication. There is a notion that fabricated results tend to be uncov- ered due to the self-regulatory mechanism of research regulation25. This is certainly far from the truth, leading Data fabrication many scientists to believe that no action on their part is necessary. Data fabrication is a large concept in society and it is According to a survey of 549 students at the University essential to distinguish it in the context of the ethical of California, 15% admitted that they would be willing to problems of scientific research. In this context fabrication select, omit, or fabricate data to win a grant or publish a is the report of a set, total or partial, of data that does not paper26. In a similar survey, 7% of postdocs at the Uni- exist and were invented. For this, the way to obtain them versity of California, San Francisco, said they were will- is forged, or includes the description of experiences that ing to select or omit data to improve their results27. have never been carried out17,18. As the opposite of telling Judith Swazey and her colleagues, covering undergra- the truth, the quintessential form of conduct of unethical duate students and professors at 99 universities, found research, but when the scientific baggage is removed, that 44% of students and 50% of the faculty were aware fabrication represents the activity of combining, shaping of two or more types of misconduct, and approximately and/or organizing the elements as a whole for a specific 10% observed or had direct knowledge in the manufac- purpose19. ture of data28. The American Association for the During studies, misunderstandings between fabrication Advancement of Science surveyed a random sample of its (presentation of facts or unproven data) and falsification members and 27% of respondents said they admitted that (alteration or selection of certain data to obtain the they found or witnessed research that was fabricated, desired results) should be strictly avoided20. Particularly falsified or plagiarized in the past 10 years29. in the scientific community in the United States, fabrica- A meta-analysis of published research was done that tion is considered a form of research misconduct, often asked scientists whether they or their peers had already associated with the term ‘falsification’19. committed acts of scientific misconduct. Approximately 2% of respondents admitted to having committed scien- tific misconduct and 14% reported knowledge of such Fabrication, falsification and plagiarism behaviour by their peers30. In the same context, it is sug- gested that there is evidence consistent with the ‘deliber- Despite the causes and estimates of misconduct in scien- ate fraud’ hypothesis; the results suggest that articles tific research, the problem remains diverse. The literature based on manufactured or falsified data represent a calcu- suggests that scientific misconduct, namely fabrication, lated effort to deceive, inferring that obviousness is not falsification and plagiarism in research, continues to naive, irresponsible or inadvertent31. damage public health and confidence in science. Thus, it The case of Diederik Stapel, that published more than should be relevant to establish the concepts and the 50 influential studies, including subjects that indicate consequent differences. dirty environments encourage racism, that eating meat During studies, misunderstandings between fabrication makes people selfish and that power undermines morali- (presentation of facts or unproven data) and falsification ty. Some of these studies elevated his academic career, (alteration or selection of certain data to obtain the before some of his students denounced him32. 20 desired results) should be strictly avoided . Some of the In the last four decades, there has been a tenfold great scientists of the past such as Galileo, Newton, Dal- increase in retractions for