Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (3):771-789 (2019)

Abstract
It is commonly hypothesized that scientists are more likely to engage in data falsification and fabrication when they are subject to pressures to publish, when they are not restrained by forms of social control, when they work in countries lacking policies to tackle scientific misconduct, and when they are male. Evidence to test these hypotheses, however, is inconclusive due to the difficulties of obtaining unbiased data. Here we report a pre-registered test of these four hypotheses, conducted on papers that were identified in a previous study as containing problematic image duplications through a systematic screening of the journal PLoS ONE. Image duplications were classified into three categories based on their complexity, with category 1 being most likely to reflect unintentional error and category 3 being most likely to reflect intentional fabrication. We tested multiple parameters connected to the hypotheses above with a matched-control paradigm, by collecting two controls for each paper containing duplications. Category 1 duplications were mostly not associated with any of the parameters tested, as was predicted based on the assumption that these duplications were mostly not due to misconduct. Categories 2 and 3, however, exhibited numerous statistically significant associations. Results of univariable and multivariable analyses support the hypotheses that academic culture, peer control, cash-based publication incentives and national misconduct policies might affect scientific integrity. No clear support was found for the “pressures to publish” hypothesis. Female authors were found to be equally likely to publish duplicated images compared to males. Country-level parameters generally exhibited stronger effects than individual-level parameters, because developing countries were significantly more likely to produce problematic image duplications. This suggests that promoting good research practices in all countries should be a priority for the international research integrity agenda.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11948-018-0023-7
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,959
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

A Case for a Duty to Feed the Hungry: GM Plants and the Third World.Lucy Carter - 2007 - Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (1):69-82.
Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-Analysis of Surveys.Vanja Pupovac & Daniele Fanelli - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (5):1331-1352.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists About Research Integrity.Sarah R. Davies - 2019 - Science and Engineering Ethics 25 (4):1235-1253.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Image Manipulation as Research Misconduct.Debra Parrish & Bridget Noonan - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (2):161-167.
Scientific Integrity in Brazil.Liliane Lins & Fernando Martins Carvalho - 2014 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 11 (3):283-287.
The Legacy of the Hwang Case: Research Misconduct in Biosciences.Péter Kakuk - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4):545-562.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-02-20

Total views
27 ( #422,779 of 2,504,602 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,529 of 2,504,602 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes