Fraud and Trust in Science

Fuchs, Stéphan; Westervelt, Saundra D.

doi:10.1353/pbm.1996.0043

Cited by 27 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such behavior undoubtedly occurs and, when it does, threatens the integrity and credibility of the medical literature. While making an error does not constitute scientific misconduct or fraud, 7 we would assert that knowingly allowing erroneous results to remain uncorrected does. In the 1992 Shattuck Lecture on misconduct in medical research given by Congressman John Dingell (D-MI), he stated, ''To condemn scientific error would be tantamount to stopping scientific progress.…”

Section: Anxietymentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Most formal definitions of misconduct include the ''intent to deceive'' and the ''deliberate fabrication or falsification of evidence'' as critical components of this differentiation. 7 Although acknowledgment of error becomes more painful after the results are in print, it is important to correct these errors before members of the scientific community are misled or, worse yet, patient care is adversely affected. Not doing so would seem to be a deliberate deception.…”

Section: Anxietymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 Competition for funding, desire for recognition, pressure to publish, and the link between scientific productivity and career advancement for the academician have probably contributed to this unfortunate transformation. 7,10 A second option for the investigator who has discovered an error would be to publicly retract the original publication. While this action would ''set the record straight,'' it does little to educate other investigators regarding the source of the error and ways to avoid making similar errors themselves.…”

Section: Anxietymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An Error in Research Admission, Anxiety, and Action

Lewis

Newgard

2000

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Anxietymentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Anxietymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Anxietymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Error in Research Admission, Anxiety, and Action

Lewis

Newgard

2000

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As research enterprise depends on taxpayers' money, it is important to retain their confidence. Increasing episodes of misconduct decreases the mutual trust between researchers (Fuchs and Westervelt, 1996). High profile misconduct issues attract the media which in turn attracts the attention of politicians.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Theoretical Comparison of the Models of Prevention of Research Misconduct

Kumar¹

2010

Accountability in Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current methods of dealing with research misconduct involve detection and rectification after the incident has already occurred. This method of monitoring scientific integrity exerts considerable negative effects on the concerned persons and is also wasteful of time and resources. Time has arrived for research administrators to focus seriously on prevention of misconduct. In this article, preventive models suggested earlier by Weed and Reason have been combined to arrive at six models of prevention. This is an effort to streamline the thinking regarding misconduct prevention, so that the advantages and disadvantages of each can be weighed and the method most appropriate for the institute chosen.

show abstract

“…The first one is Bayesian updating of beliefs (Azoulay et al, 2015, predicting that after the surfacing of retractions, involved scientists are considered to be of lower 'quality' than before. Second, a loss of trust may lead scientists to avoid citations to work associated with misconduct -even indirectly -in order to protect their integrity (Fuchs and Westervelt, 1996). Lastly, the actual or feared invalidation of part of the scientific field by a retraction may incentivize scientists to move to different topics (Azoulay et al, 2014a).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators

Hussinger

Pellens

2019

Research Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW. show that the negative effects of scientific misconduct spill over to uninvolved prior collaborators: compared to a control group, prior collaborators of misconducting scientists, who have no link to the misconduct case, are cited 8 to 9% less afterwards. We suggest that the mechanism underlying this phenomenon is stigmatization by mere association. The result suggests that scientific misconduct generates large indirect costs in the form of mistrust against a wider range of research findings than was previously assumed. The broad fallout of misconduct implies that potential whistleblowers might be disinclined to make their concerns public in order to protect their own reputation and career.

show abstract

Fraud and Trust in Science

Cited by 27 publications

References 42 publications

An Error in Research Admission, Anxiety, and Action

An Error in Research Admission, Anxiety, and Action

A Theoretical Comparison of the Models of Prevention of Research Misconduct

Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About