DOCSLIB.ORG

A Narrative on the Fabrication of Results in Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Narrative on the Fabrication of Results in Science 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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Impact of External Whistleblowers on Uncovering Corruption: a Comparative Study
    The Impact of External Whistleblowers on Uncovering Corruption: A Comparative Study Carmen Apaza PhD Candidate of Public Administration and Policy School of Public Affairs American University [email protected] Yongjin Chang PhD Candidate of Public Administration and Policy School of Public Affairs American University [email protected] Work in progress – please do not cite Paper to be presented to Ethics and Integrity of Governance European Group of Public Administration Rotherdam, Netherlands September, 2008 The Impact of External Whistleblowers on Uncovering Corruption: A Comparative Study Carmen Apaza & Yongjin Chang1 Abstract Through an original comparative framework as well as archival and pattern matching research methodology, this paper analyzes two important whistleblowing cases in Peru and South Korea. The study finds strong evidence to conclude that external whistlebowing is effective, mass media is a valuable tool for external whistleblowers, powerful allies and strong evidences are crucial factors for making whistle-blowing process easier, and external whistle- blowing works out even in the absence of sufficient legal protection. Nevertheless external whistleblowers experience severe retaliation when there is no proper legal protection. The findings of this study suggest that whistle-blowing is a crucial instrument to improve government accountability and transparency. Hence, it should be considered beyond national boundaries. 1 Both authors are equally contributed to write this paper. 2 Introduction Whistleblowing can be defined as a disclosure of information by an employee or contractor who alleges willful misconduct carried out by an individual or group of individuals within an organiztion (Figg 2000). A whistleblower is a valuable information source that the government or the public cannot get from any oversight systems, because they are insiders of the organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Studies in Research Misconduct and Human Subjects
    Rules of the Road for those Conducting Federally Funded or Regulated Research: Case Studies in Research Misconduct and Human Subjects April 2, 2019 University of Maryland School of Medicine Baltimore, MD Robert P. Charrow General Counsel United States Department of Health and Human Services Introduction The materials that follow address three areas-misconduct in science, human subjects and privacy, and financial conflicts of interest. To help illustrate the application of the rules that pertain in each area, a number of hypothetical case studies are presented. You should read and be prepared to discuss each case study during the April 2 lecture. The government regulates research under two authorities. First, it regulates research that it funds. How much does the federal government spend annually on research? See Table 2. Second, a federal agency can regulate research on products that fall within its jurisdiction. Thus, by way of example, the Food and Drug Administration asserts jurisdiction over clinical drug trials even though those trials are privately funded. 1. Misconduct A. What is Research Misconduct? The Public Health Service ("PHS"), which includes NIH, defines "research misconduct" as follows: Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. (a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. (b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. (c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating the History of Science Into Broader Discussions of Research Integrity and Fraud
    HOS0010.1177/0073275320952268History of ScienceRoberts et al. 952268research-article2020 Introduction HOS History of Science 2020, Vol. 58(4) 354 –368 Integrating the history © The Author(s) 2020 of science into broader https://doi.org/10.1177/0073275320952268Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions discussions of research DOI: 10.1177/0073275320952268 integrity and fraud journals.sagepub.com/home/hos Lissa L. Roberts University of Twente, Netherlands H. Otto Sibum Uppsala University, Sweden Cyrus C. M. Mody Maastricht University, Netherlands Abstract This introductory article frames our special issue in terms of how historicizing research integrity and fraud can benefit current discussions of scientific conduct and the need to improve public trust in science. Keywords Research integrity, fraud, scientific conduct, scientific values, public trust Writing about research integrity and fraud in the midst of the Covid-19 crisis carries an extra sense of urgency. Voices of reason tell us to trust the experts, echoing both the (idealized) scientific method and Ronald Reagan’s response to Soviet promises regard- ing nuclear disarmament: “trust, but verify.” Great advice, but how easy is it really to identify trustworthy experts? Is the boundary between healthy skepticism and manufac- tured doubt a simple matter of distinguishing between valid laboratory and publishing protocols on one side and political, economic, or personal interests on the other? Should we follow those who rely on the Mertonian distinction between norm-bound
    [Show full text]
  • The Carnage of Substandard Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Call for Quality Katrina a Bramstedt ‍ 1,2
    Brief report J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/medethics-2020-106494 on 1 October 2020. Downloaded from The carnage of substandard research during the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for quality Katrina A Bramstedt 1,2 1Luxembourg Agency for ABSTRACT issued (tables 2 and 3).ii The source of most of these Research Integrity, Esch- sur- Worldwide there are currently over 1200 research studies incidents is Asia (n=19; 57.6%), with China the Alzette, Luxembourg 2 largest Asian subgroup (n=11; 57.9%). For three Bond University Faculty of being performed on the topic of COVID-19. Many of Health Sciences and Medicine, these involve children and adults over age 65 years. papers, the reason for the removal is unknown; Gold Coast, Queensland, There are also numerous studies testing investigational however, for the others, a range of problems Australia vaccines on healthy volunteers. No research team exist, including data falsification, methodological is exempt from the pressures and speed at which concerns, and concerns about interpretation of data Correspondence to COVID-19 research is occurring. And this can increase and conclusions, as well as authorship and research Professor Katrina A Bramstedt, participant privacy issues (table 4). To date, there Bond University Faculty of the risk of honest error as well as misconduct. To date, Health Sciences and Medicine, 33 papers have been identified as unsuitable for public have been no identified reports of plagiarism or Gold Coast, Queensland, use and either retracted, withdrawn, or noted with data fabrication. Another paper, a preprint from the Australia; concern. Asia is the source of most of these manuscripts USA about COVID-19 antibody seroprevalence, has txbioethics@ yahoo.
    [Show full text]
  • Achieving a High Level of Protection from Pesticides in Europe: Problems with the Current Risk Assessment Procedure and Solutions
    https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.18 . Achieving a High Level of Protection from Pesticides in Europe: Problems with the Current Risk Assessment Procedure and Solutions Claire ROBINSON* , Christopher J. PORTIER**, Aleksandra ČAVOŠKI***, Robin MESNAGE****, Apolline ROGER*****, Peter CLAUSING******, Paul WHALEY*******, Hans MUILERMAN******** and https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Angeliki LYSSIMACHOU********* The regulation of pesticides in the European Union (EU) relies on a network of hard law (legislation and implementing acts) and soft law (non-legally binding guidance documents and administrative and scientific practices). Both hard and soft laws govern how risk assessments are conducted, but a significant role is left to the latter. Europe’s pesticide regulation is one of the most stringent in the world. Its stated objectives are to ensure an independent, objective and transparent assessment of pesticides and achieve a high level of protection for health and environment. However, a growing body of evidence shows that pesticides that have passed through this process and are authorised for use may harm , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at humans, animals and the environment. The authors of the current paper – experts in toxicology, law and policy – identified shortcomings in the authorisation process, focusing on the EU assessment of the pesticide active substance glyphosate. The shortcomings mostly consist of failures to implement the hard or soft laws. But in some instances the law itself is responsible, as some provisions can only fail to achieve its objectives. Ways to improve the system are proposed, requiring changes in hard and soft laws as well as in administrative 30 Sep 2021 at 13:44:58 and scientific practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Allegations of Scientific Misconduct: A
    MANAGING ALLEGATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: A Guidance Document for Editors January 2000 Office of Research Integrity Office of Public Health and Science U.S. Department of Health and Human Services http://ori.dhhs.gov 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Role of Editors in Responding to Scientific Misconduct .............. 1 II. Purpose of Guidelines ................................................................... 2 III. Definitions ..................................................................................... 2 IV. Procedure for Handling Suspect Manuscripts .............................. 3 V. Responding to ORI Requests for Assistance ............................... 4 VI. Correcting the Literature ............................................................... 5 VII. Helpful Editorial Policies ............................................................... 5 VIII. Conclusion .................................................................................... 8 References ................................................................................................. 9 Appendix A: ORI Case Examples of Suspect Manuscripts ..................... 11 ORI Information and Technical Assistance . Inside Back Cover 2 MANAGING ALLEGATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: A Guidance Document for Editors* I. Role of Editors in Responding to Scientific Misconduct The role editors should play in responding to scientific misconduct has been articulated by their colleagues, asserted by two national reports, and demonstrated by the scientific misconduct allegations
    [Show full text]
  • How Scientific Misconduct Harms Prior Collaborators
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Hussinger, Katrin; Pellens, Maikel Working Paper Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators ZEW Discussion Papers, No. 17-051 Provided in Cooperation with: ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research Suggested Citation: Hussinger, Katrin; Pellens, Maikel (2017) : Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators, ZEW Discussion Papers, No. 17-051, Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW), Mannheim, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:180-madoc-436888 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/171327 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Dis cus si on Paper No. 17-051 Guilt by Association: How Scientific Misconduct Harms Prior Collaborators Katrin Hussinger and Maikel Pellens Dis cus si on Paper No.
    [Show full text]
  • MOX Data Fabrication: Lack of Regulatory Ability Exposed
    TOKYO March/April NUKE INFO 2000 Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center No. 76 3F Kotobuki Bldg., 1-58-15, Higashi-nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003, JAPAN URL: http://www.jca.apc.org/cnic/ e-mail : [email protected] MOX Data Fabrication: Lack of Regulatory Ability Exposed (Left) Protest against MOX utilization. (Right) X-ray photo of rejected BNFL fuel rods (source: Kansai Electric) The criticality accident at Tokai last fall Plant (PWR) on Oct. 1, the day after the demonstrated the inherent risks of nuclear JCO accident. Data fabrication by BNFL energy, and forced Japan to review its was revealed on Sep. 19, after the ship had nuclear power policies. Shortly before, left the British port, by an article in the UK and soon after, this worst-ever accident in newspaper, The Independent, which was Japan's nuclear history on Sep. 30, 1999, based on inside information. Kansai Elec- MOX fuel manufactured at British Nuclear tric announced that it had postponed the Fuels plc (BNFL) and Belgonuclaire arrived loading of MOX fuel into Takahama 3 on in Japan. It was later revealed that data CONTENTS for the quality control of the BNFL fuel had NII report on MOX data fabrication 1-2 been falsified. Plans for nuclear plant canceled 3 The ships carrying MOX fuel left Europe Aging and decommisioning of reactors 4-7 in mid-July and delivered 32 assemblies to STA's dose evaluation of JCO accident 8 Tokyo Electric's Fukushima I plant (BWR) Latest on Rokkasho facilities 9 on the eastern side of Japan on Sep.
    [Show full text]
  • General Guidelines for Academic Integrity Report (Amended Version)
    General Guidelines for Academic Integrity Report (amended version) 9/23/2019 Erasmus+ project “European Network for Academic Integrity” Loreta TAUGINIENĖ Milan OJSTERŠEK Tomáš FOLTÝNEK Franca MARINO Marco COSENTINO Inga GAIŽAUSKAITĖ Irene GLENDINNING Shiva SIVASUBRAMANIAM Salim RAZI Laura RIBEIRO Tatjana ODIŅECA Oliver TREVISIOL This publication refers to a sub-output of the project “European Network for Academic Integrity”, funded under Erasmus Plus, Strategic Partnerships (agreement No. 016-1- CZ01-KA203-023949). It is available for download at the project website http://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/. Project coordinator: Contact regarding the report: Tomáš Foltýnek Mendel University in Brno (Czech Republic) Inga Gaižauskaitė E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Project consortium: HOW TO CITE ISO 690 Tauginienė, L, Ojsteršek, M, Foltýnek, T, Marino, F, Cosentino, M, Gaižauskaitė, I, Glendinning, I, Sivasubramaniam, S, Razi, S, Ribeiro, L, Odiņeca, T., Trevisiol, O. General Guidelines for Academic Integrity. ENAI Report 3A [online], first publication date: October 2018, amended version: September 2019. Publication history: Version 1.0 October 2018. Version 1.1 September 2019. 1 ABOUT THE PROJECT The project “European Network for Academic Integrity” (ENAI) aims foremost to raise awareness in the matters of plagiarism, academic ethics, scholarly values and academic integrity. ENAI focuses not only on students, but on the entire academic community (including professors, researchers, post-docs, PhDs, administration staff and management, academic ethics committees, etc.). This project envisages developing three major outputs: Educational materials for higher education institutions’ teachers and students (O1), Toolkit for cross-sector cooperation in terms of academic integrity (O2) and Handbook for improvements in academic integrity (O3).
    [Show full text]
  • Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic [V1 to V2 Differences]
    Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic [V1 to V2 differences] Lonni Besançon ID 1,2*, Nathan Peiffer-Smadja ID 3,4, Corentin Segalas ID 5, Haiting Jiang6, Paola Masuzzo ID 7, Cooper Smout ID 7, Eric Billy8, Maxime Deforet ID 9+ and Clémence Leyrat ID 5,10+ 1Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia 2Media and Information Technology, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden 3Université de Paris, IAME, INSERM, F-75018 Paris, France 4National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom 5Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom 6School of Health Policy and Management, Nanjing Medical University, No.101 Longmian Avenue, Nanjing 211166, P.R.China. 7IGDORE, Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education 8Chercheur immuno-oncologie, Strasbourg, France 9Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Institut de Biologie Paris-Seine (IBPS), Laboratoire Jean Perrin (LJP), F-75005, Paris, France 10Inequalities in Cancer Outcomes Network, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom *[email protected] +these authors contributed equally to this work Abstract In the last decade Open Science principles have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in different research communities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many publishers and researchers have sped up their adoption of some of these Open Science practices, sometimes embracing them fully and sometimes partially or in a sub-optimal manner. In this article, we express concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output.
    [Show full text]
  • Parallels of Unintentional Plagiarism and Predatory Publishing: Understanding Root Causes and Solutions
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Publications and Research New York City College of Technology 2017 Parallels of Unintentional Plagiarism and Predatory Publishing: Understanding Root Causes and Solutions Monica Berger CUNY New York City College of Technology How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/ny_pubs/352 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Monica Berger, Associate Professor, Library, NYC College of Technology, CUNY Parallels of Unintentional Plagiarism and Predatory Publishing: Understanding Root Causes and Solutions CUNY-Wide Conference on Academic Integrity Eugenio María de Hostos Community College Sept. 29, 2017 Abstract Plagiarism and predatory publishing share common attributes. Although students do not publish in predatory journals, both plagiarism and predatory publishing fall under the umbrella of academic integrity and scholarly ethics. Academic misconduct has many faces, ranging from student cheating on exams to purchasing a doctoral thesis and claiming it as one’s own work. Some forms of academic misconduct, such as the examples above are always intentional. However, many manifestations of academic misconduct are less clearly intentional. Students often plagiarize unintentionally because they lack writing skills including paraphrasing and citing. Faculty sometimes publish with predatory journals when they lack scholarly publishing knowledge. Weak information literacy underpins both behaviors. However, other factors drive both plagiarism and predatory publishing. Three broad areas are cultural considerations, generational differences, and local academic values. The discourse related to cultural considerations is especially fruitful to unpack.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Matters of Fraud: Sociomaterial Technology in the Case of Hwang
    HOS0010.1177/0073275320921687History of SciencePark 921687research-article2020 Article HOS History of Science 2020, Vol. 58(4) 393 –416 Making matters of fraud: © The Author(s) 2020 Sociomaterial technology Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions in the case of Hwang and https://doi.org/10.1177/0073275320921687DOI: 10.1177/0073275320921687 Schatten journals.sagepub.com/home/hos Buhm Soon Park Graduate School of Science, Technology, and Policy, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Republic of Korea Abstract This paper revisits the “Hwang case,” which shook Korean society and the world of stem cell research in 2005 with the fraudulent claim of creating patient-specific embryonic stem cells. My goal is to overcome a human-centered, Korea-oriented narrative, by illustrating how materials can have an integral role in the construction and judgment of fraud. To this end, I pay attention to Woo Suk Hwang’s lab at Seoul National University as a whole, including human and nonhuman agents, that functioned as what I call sociomaterial technology, and Gerald P. Schatten at the University of Pittsburgh, Hwang’s collaborator, who played a crucial role in demonstrating the potency of this technology to the members of the scientific community. By recasting the whole event as the “case of Hwang and Schatten,” I argue that fraud is, like all knowledge claims, a sociotechnical construct, and that matters of fraud are locally judged. Fraud leaves its mark on materials, but I show that material evidence alone never
    [Show full text]