The fallout: What happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct?

Lubalin, James S.; Matheson, Jennifer L.

doi:10.1007/s11948-999-0014-9

Cited by 31 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are previous studies focusing on the ORI cases of scientific misconduct (Lubalin and Matheson, 1999;Pozzi and David, 2007;Redman and Merz, 2008;Resnik and Dinse, 2012;Reynolds, 2004;Rhoades, 2004;Wright et al, 2008). Earlier studies (Rhoades, 2004, Reynolds, 12 2004, Pozzi and David, 2007) provide detailed descriptive evidence on the ORI misconduct cases, looking into the different types of accusations and outcomes, sources of funding, trends over time, etc.…”

Section: Institutional Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior research has shown that co-authors of misconducting scientists experience significant drops in their publication flows (Mongeon and Larivière, 2014). While research on actual misconduct cases is scarce and due to the limited amount of cases rather descriptive (Lubalin and Matheson, 1999;Pozzi and David, 2007;Redman and Merz, 2008;Resnik and Dinse, 2012;Reynolds, 2004;Rhoades, 2004), we can refer to a related strand of the previous literature that has focused on retractions of journal articles. Retractions can occur in response to both scientific misconduct, but can also be due to honest mistakes (Azoulay et al, 2014a;Fang et al, 2012;Van Noorden, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We thus avoid the considerable uncertainty inherent to retraction-based analyses and instead base ourselves on confirmed cases of scientific misconduct (Azoulay et al, 2014a;Fang et al, 2012;Van Noorden, 2011). In doing so, we expand the literature analysing misconduct at the ORI (Lubalin and Matheson, 1999;Pozzi and David, 2007;Redman and Merz, 2008;Resnik and Dinse, 2012;Reynolds, 2004;Rhoades, 2004;Wright et al, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Guilt by Association: How Scientific Misconduct Harms Prior Collaborators

Hussinger

Pellens

2017

SSRN Journal

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

Section: Institutional Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Guilt by Association: How Scientific Misconduct Harms Prior Collaborators

Hussinger

Pellens

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers who have been investigated and eventually exonerated of misconduct have significant negative impact physically and mentally (RTI, 1996). With respect to the "accusing persons" (whistleblowers), it is well known that they are subjected to retribution and their own interests may suffer in the process of exposing misconduct (Lennane, 1993;Lenzer, 2004;Martin, 1999;Lubalin and Matheson, 1999). Fear of retribution by the accused and shame of being identified as a traitor may decrease whistleblower's motivation to report misconduct (Bolsin, 2003).…”

Section: Tertiary Prevention Models "Person Approach" To Tertiary Prementioning

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

“…Exposing misconduct plays a significant role in maintaining the integrity of scientific research. Institutional policies and regulations to address allegations of scientific fraud must include provisions for the protection of the accuser and the accused (in case they are exonerated) 36 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible conduct of research: enhancing local opportunities

Mwaka¹

2017

Afr H. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Research integrity is the foundation of credible research and a pre-requisite for a successful academic research environment. Lately, a lot of revelations of fraud and other unacceptable behaviour in research have been highly publicized in scientific journals and mass media. Whereas institutions in developed countries have developed guidelines and regulations to ensure responsible conduct of research and appropriately deal with cases of research misconduct, low-and middle-income countries seem to be lagging behind. In Uganda, there seems to be lack of coordinated efforts to address the problem of research misconduct both at the national and institutional level. Objective: To propose a framework for fostering scientific integrity and deterring misconduct in research in Ugandan research and academic institutions. Methods: A review of literature on scientific integrity, scientific misconduct, responsible conduct of research, and international ethical guidelines was done. Results: Basing on the 2012 Inter-Academy Council policy report, initiatives to promote responsible conduct of research in Ugandan research and academic institutions are proposed. Conclusion: With the proposed framework, an honest and trustworthy research enterprise in Uganda based on principles of scientific integrity is envisioned.

show abstract

The fallout: What happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct?

Cited by 31 publications

References 11 publications

Guilt by Association: How Scientific Misconduct Harms Prior Collaborators

Guilt by Association: How Scientific Misconduct Harms Prior Collaborators

A Theoretical Comparison of the Models of Prevention of Research Misconduct

Responsible conduct of research: enhancing local opportunities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About