[Insight-developers] PLoS ONE: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

[Luis Ibanez]

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738

<quote>

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

Abstract Top

The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or
commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy.
Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed
or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their
results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first
meta-analysis of these surveys.

To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least
one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the
analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge:
fabrication, falsification, “cooking” of data, etc… Survey questions on
plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The
final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the
systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis.


...

This is the first meta-analysis of surveys asking scientists about their
experiences of misconduct. It found that, on average, about 2% of
scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or
results at least once –a serious form of misconduct my any standard
[10], [36], [37]– and up to one third admitted a variety of other
questionable research practices including “dropping data points based on
a gut feeling”, and “changing the design, methodology or results of a
study in response to pressures from a funding source”. In surveys asking
about the behaviour of colleagues, fabrication, falsification and
modification had been observed, on average, by over 14% of respondents,
and other questionable practices by up to 72%. Over the years, the rate
of admissions declined significantly in self-reports, but not in
non-self-reports.

...

</quote>

Full paper available in Open Access at
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738#s4