Scientific misconduct is real, but rare

February 14, 2013

(Phys.org)—Richard Primack, Boston University professor of biology and editor-in-chief of the journal Biological Conservation, observes in the current issue of that publication that while instances of scientific misconduct in the publication of research findings is a matter of serious concern, such occurrences are extremely rare. Primack shares his views on this matter in an editorial in the current issue of Biological Conservation.

Primack's observations are related to a case where certain results from a paper published in Biological Conservation had to be removed and the paper revised because data provided by one of the authors could not be verified. This is part of on-going involving a Spanish wildlife ecologist in which many papers have been retracted (http://elpais.com/elpais/2012/06/15/inenglish/1339761262_015565.html). "Readers of this journal and other might be concerned that this example and others reported in the press and scientific outlets suggest that may be both widespread and increasing," says Primack. "However, we at Biological Conservation come to a very different conclusion."

To make his point, Primack cites a study(Steen, 2010) that suggests retractions of scientific papers occur at a rate of 1–3 papers per 10,000 published. "This is the first case of serious scientific misconduct that we have seen over the past nine years of the journal, during which time around 2000 papers have been published," says Primack.

Primack acknowledges that instances of scientific misconduct are cause for concern, and cites a number of other recent cases that vary in severity, but these in effect are exceptions that prove the rule. "We have encountered a small number of papers that present , but fall somewhat short of real scientific misconduct." Recognizing it is possible there are undetected cases of misconduct, Primack argues that the likelihood of this is low: Over the years, these would have been discovered if they existed.

While Primack and his colleagues at remain vigilant over the issue of scientific misconduct, their overall experience is that the vast majority of the scientific community maintains the highest ethical standards. Says Primack, "Considering the approximately 2000 papers that we have published in recent years, and the roughly 8000 papers that we have received and reviewed, this present case of scientific misconduct is not at all representative. Such cases of scientific misconduct are extremely rare, which is probably why they are so highly publicized when they occur."

Explore further: Substantial costs associated with scientific misconduct should prioritize prevention efforts

Related Stories

Feds: Ex-Harvard prof faked data in experiments

September 5, 2012

(AP)—Federal investigators have found that a Harvard University psychology professor who resigned after being accused of scientific misconduct fabricated data and manipulated results in experiments.

Study: Men more likely than women to commit scientific fraud

January 22, 2013

Male scientists are far more likely to commit fraud than females and the fraud occurs across the career spectrum, from trainees to senior faculty. The analysis of professional misconduct was co-led by a researcher at Albert ...

Recommended for you

Early human diet explains our eating habits

August 31, 2015

Much attention is being given to what people ate in the distant past as a guide to what we should eat today. Advocates of the claimed palaeodiet recommend that we should avoid carbohydrates and load our plates with red meat ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.