文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud?

作者信息

Claxton Larry D

机构信息

Environmental Carcinogenesis Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.

出版信息

Mutat Res. 2005 Jan;589(1):17-30. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2004.07.003.


DOI:10.1016/j.mrrev.2004.07.003
PMID:15652224
Abstract

The examination of a single scientific manuscript seldom alerts scientists, reviewers, editors, and scientific administrators to the fabrication and falsification of data and information. This review shows that most documented cases of scientific fraud involve falsification (altering truthful information) and fabrication (inventing information where none previously existed). Plagiarism is much less frequent. The review of published accounts also shows that the publication of scientific papers containing recognizable fraudulent material is very low, probably less than 0.02% and extremely difficult to detect. Because most reported cases of fraud have involved research done at prestigious organizations with distinguished co-authors, and that is published in journals with exacting review processes, it becomes evident that some unscrupulous scientists are adept at fabricating and falsifying data. However, "significant" scientific fraud is detected when scientists repeatedly report results that cannot be independently verified, when colleagues report suspicious behavior, or scientific audits are performed. This review documents and compares many of the better-known cases of scientific fraud. Fraudulent behavior has served as the impetus for the scientific community to develop publication procedures and guidelines that help to guard against not only fraudulent behavior but also against other types of unethical or undesirable behaviors. A companion paper reviews the non-fraudulent issues associated with scientific publication.

摘要

相似文献

[1]
Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud?

Mutat Res. 2005-1

[2]
Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?

J Med Ethics. 2010-11-15

[3]
Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines.

Mutat Res. 2005-1

[4]
Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?

J Med Ethics. 2010-12-24

[5]
[Investigation of scientific fraud. Statements from the Swedish Research Council not sufficiently normative].

Lakartidningen. 2006

[6]
Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: results of an international survey.

J Med Ethics. 2009-6

[7]
Ethical and legal considerations in a case of research fraud.

J Am Coll Dent. 2008

[8]
Ethics and scientific publication.

Adv Physiol Educ. 2005-6

[9]
[Fraud and misconduct in scientific publications].

Neurologia. 2010

[10]
Ethical dilemmas in journal publication.

Clin Dermatol. 2012

引用本文的文献

[1]
Group authorship, an excellent opportunity laced with ethical, legal and technical challenges.

Account Res. 2024-3-6

[2]
Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns.

R Soc Open Sci. 2023-10-18

[3]
Awareness and Perception About Research Ethics and Misconduct Among the Teaching Staff of Health Colleges, Jazan University, Saudi Arabia.

Cureus. 2023-8-12

[4]
An Ethical Exploration of Increased Average Number of Authors Per Publication.

Sci Eng Ethics. 2022-5-23

[5]
Writing for "International Orthopaedics": authorship, fraud, and ethical concerns.

Int Orthop. 2021-10

[6]
Knowledge and attitudes of physicians toward research ethics and scientific misconduct in Lebanon.

BMC Med Ethics. 2020-5-14

[7]
The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications.

Scientometrics. 2019

[8]
The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future.

F1000Res. 2018-10-5

[9]
Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure.

R Soc Open Sci. 2018-1-10

[10]
Research Misconduct: A Report from a Developing Country.

Iran J Public Health. 2017-10

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索