A Theoretical Comparison of the Models of Prevention of Research Misconduct

Abstract

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.

Criminals in the citadel and deceit all along the watchtower: Irresponsibility, fraud, and complicity in the search for scientific truth

“…Unfortunately, it is highly doubtful whether most such institutions in India, or in other resource constrained countries, have established processes or mechanisms, or the will, to deal with issues pertaining to breaches of research integrity. The situation becomes more complex when the accused is also part of the management, or the head, as in the case of Singh, of a private institution.Many of the risk factors that set the stage for scientific misconduct to occur are systemic (Altman and Melcher, 1983[2]; Dingell, 1993[6]; Horton, 2005[15]; Bonetta, 2006[3]; Smith, 2006[34]; White, 2005[40]; Marcovitch, 2007[23]; Kumar 2010[17]; Godlee et al ., 2011[11]; Marcovitch, 2011[24]) and include: The unrealistic societal and academic expectations from the results of scientific research, leading to research environments with emphasis on quantity rather than quality and integrity, and a competitive rather than collaborative ethos; and unrealistic pressures to publish for academic advancement, securing competitive research grants, and fulfilling funding or institutional performance requirements.The dislike by scientists and journals for negative results, and findings that contradict established beliefs and expectations; and a bias in favor of novel findings and new products, instead of the “truth”.Inadequate attention to meticulous documentation and quality assurance, and a propensity on the part of supervisors and reviewers to be vigilant about errors and bias but less often about deception and falsification, or fabrication. There is also lax or nonexistent supervision of young researchers, especially where supervisors are negligent or over-committed.…”

“…Many of the risk factors that set the stage for scientific misconduct to occur are systemic (Altman and Melcher, 1983[2]; Dingell, 1993[6]; Horton, 2005[15]; Bonetta, 2006[3]; Smith, 2006[34]; White, 2005[40]; Marcovitch, 2007[23]; Kumar 2010[17]; Godlee et al ., 2011[11]; Marcovitch, 2011[24]) and include:…”

“…These combined approaches also need to be evaluated to assess their success in improving the climate of responsibility and accountability in the conduct of research, and to identify barriers and facilitators (Nylenna and Simonsen, 2006[29]; Kumar, 2010[17]).…”

Assessing the Academic integrity among University Students in Pakistan

“…Studies related to the consequences of dishonesty usually report the appalling conditions of university education and how plagiarism has deteriorated the quality of graduates (Bachore, 2016). While, studies related to the prevention of misconduct usually discuss models, strategies, and techniques to enhance academic integrity (Kumar, 2010). However, the broader causes of misconduct are rarely documented, especially with this question of why students cheat.…”

Targets for Honesty: How Performance Indicators Shape Integrity in Dutch Higher Education

“…There is a rapidly growing body of research, with theoretical contributions to the study of academic integrity (e.g. LaFollette ; Sovacool ; Kumar ) as well as empirical studies that map the prevalence of scientific misconduct (for example, Martinson et al ; Fanelli ; Steen et al ). Although there is a large body of research into misconduct committed by students (for an overview see Stone et al ), academic misconduct by faculty and staff receives far less attention (Jones and Spraakman ).…”