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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: DuBois, James M., Anderson, Emily E., Chibnall, John, Carroll, Kelly, Gibb, Tyler, Ogbuka, Chiji, Rubbelke, Timothy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2013
Materias:
Research Article
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3805450/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24028480
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822248
Descripción
Sumario: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.

Ejemplares similares