skip to main content
Language:
Search Limited to: Search Limited to: Resource type Show Results with: Show Results with: Search type Index

How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data

PloS one, 2009-05, Vol.4 (5), p.e5738-e5738 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

COPYRIGHT 2009 Public Library of Science ;2009 Fanelli. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. ;Fanelli. 2009 ;ISSN: 1932-6203 ;EISSN: 1932-6203 ;DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 ;PMID: 19478950

Full text available

Citations Cited by
  • Title:
    How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data
  • Author: Fanelli, Daniele
  • Tregenza, Tom
  • Subjects: Biotechnology industry ; Cooking ; Data Collection ; Data processing ; Ethics ; Ethics, Research ; Evidence-Based Healthcare/Quality and Safety in Medical Practice ; Fabrication ; Fraud ; Medical research ; Pharmacology ; Plagiarism ; Polls & surveys ; Professional misconduct ; Regression Analysis ; Research Personnel - ethics ; Science Policy ; Science Policy/Education ; Scientific Misconduct - ethics ; Scientists ; Studies
  • Is Part Of: PloS one, 2009-05, Vol.4 (5), p.e5738-e5738
  • Description: 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.
  • Publisher: United States: Public Library of Science
  • Language: English
  • Identifier: ISSN: 1932-6203
    EISSN: 1932-6203
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
    PMID: 19478950
  • Source: PLoS OA刊
    Geneva Foundation Free Medical Journals at publisher websites
    MEDLINE
    PubMed Central
    ProQuest Central
    DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
Back to results list
INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY (84-028) 37 755 057 Feedback
19 Nguyen Huu Tho St. Dist.7, HCM thuvien@tdtu.edu.vn

Copyright © 2017 INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait