Ethical Challenges to Risk Scientists: An Exploratory Analysis of Survey Data

Greenberg, Michael; Goldberg, Laura A.

doi:10.1177/016224399401900206

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the current survey, we asked whether, within the previous academic year, re-spondents had "observed or heard about" faculty engaging in the enumerated behaviors. Although different methods have been used to investigate research misconduct, following Greenberg and Goldberg (1994), among others, we used an indirect approach because meta-analysis has shown that self-report surveys using terms such as "fabricated results" yielded lower percentages of reported misconduct (Fanelli, 2009). Indirect questioning is thus preferred as a means of reducing socialdesirability effects associated with the normative disinclination to personally acknowledge engaging in such conduct and tapping respondents' own beliefs and behaviors (Fisher, 1993).…”

Section: Obtaining the Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Management Science on the Credibility Bubble: Cardinal Sins and Various Misdemeanors

Bedeian

Taylor

Miller

2010

AMLE

120

170

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research-based essay presents survey results-collected from faculty in 104 PhDgranting management departments of AACSB-accredited business schools in the United States-regarding 11 different types of questionable research conduct, including data fabrication, data falsification, plagiarism, inappropriately accepting or assigning authorship credit, and publishing the same data or results in two or more publications. Findings suggest that instances of research misconduct covering a broad array of behaviors are not unknown to survey respondents.

show abstract

Section: Obtaining the Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Management Science on the Credibility Bubble: Cardinal Sins and Various Misdemeanors

Bedeian

Taylor

Miller

2010

AMLE

120

170

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, these studies have used different methods and asked different questions, so their results have been deemed inconclusive and/or difficult to compare (e.g. [19] , [20] ). A non-systematic review based on survey and non-survey data led to estimate that the frequency of “serious misconduct”, including plagiarism, is near 1% [11] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…13 Greenberg and Goldberg (1994) find that less than 16 percent of environmental and research economists found any utility in any form of government audit or intervention. less relevant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating solutions to the problem of false positives

Gall

Maniadis

2019

Research Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A current challenge for the scientific community is the choice of appropriate policies to reduce the rate of false positives. Existing proposals differ in whether to prioritize tackling omission through transparency requirements, punishing more severe transgressions, or possibly both. We use a formal model to evaluate these possible solutions. We find that a policy that prohibitively increases the cost of 'misdemeanor' types of questionable research practices robustly decreases the overall rate of researcher misconduct, because the rate of 'felonies', such as fabrication, also decreases. Therefore proposals that aim to prevent lying by omission by enforcing reporting guidelines are likely to be effective in reducing researcher misconduct, but measures such as government audits (purported to counteract pure fraud) can backfire. Moreover, we find that an increase in the rewards of publication need not increase overall misconduct.

show abstract

Ethical Challenges to Risk Scientists: An Exploratory Analysis of Survey Data

Cited by 16 publications

References 18 publications

Management Science on the Credibility Bubble: Cardinal Sins and Various Misdemeanors

Management Science on the Credibility Bubble: Cardinal Sins and Various Misdemeanors

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

Evaluating solutions to the problem of false positives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About