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

Abstract

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.A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

Stop ignoring misconduct

“…For instance, a review 2 of 2,047 life-science papers retracted from 1973 to 2012 found that around 43% were attributed to fraud or suspected fraud. A compilation of anonymous surveys 3 suggests that 2% of scientists and trainees admit that they have fabricated, falsified or modified data. And a 1996 study 4 of more than 1,000 postdocs found that more than one-quarter would select or omit data to improve their chances of receiving grant funding.…”

The right and the wrong with epilepsy and her science

“…The epilepsy journals, as with others, are littered with their fair share of reports of the success of surgical and medical treatments that cannot possibly be correct, and for these various reasons, it has been claimed that massive misinformation exists in the domain of scientific research. This has become of increasing public concern 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44. Goldacre wrote of a litany of dubious practices in relation to pharmaceutical trials including missing data from negative trials that were suppressed, the lack of transparency of data, the problems with outsourcing volunteer studies, statistical errors in trials, the medicalization of behaviors to create diseases that then can be treated, the sophistication of marketing of drugs, the nature of the connections between the academic medical community and commercial interests 45.…”

Maintaining the Public Trust in Journals with Ethical Publishing

“…To date, we have been lucky at JMT, but letting something get published that does not meet our standard of ethical integrity can certainly happen here as has already occurred in most journals. According to some estimates, anywhere from 0.02 to 0.2% of published papers include some degree of fraudulent work or other misconduct [3]-that is, a staggering number when considering that over 28,000 journals publish over 2,000,000 new articles each year.…”

“…According to a sobering meta-analysis published almost 10 years ago, almost 2% of published scientists "admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once -a serious form of misconduct by any standard -and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices." [3]. This is why all submissions to JMT are subjected to careful review by experienced editors and content experts, and when numbers are used in a manuscript, we also rely on the talented eye of a statistical editor.…”

“…Unlike the other forms of misconduct defined by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity, plagiarism does not distort scientific knowledge as much as it has important consequences for the careers of scholars and thus for the whole scientific enterprise [3,10]. Earlier this year, the editor-in-chief of Annals of Internal Medicine reported that the reviewer of one of its manuscripts "had stolen the contents of a manuscript sent to that reviewer for evaluation" and then that reviewer published that very same content almost verbatim in another journal [11].…”