Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:21:47.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SCIENTIFIC FRAUD Part II: From Past to Present, Facts and Analyses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2022

Ernesto Carafoli Open the ORCID record for Ernesto Carafoli [Opens in a new window]  and
Enrico Bucci
Ernesto Carafoli
Affiliation:
Venetian Institute of Molecular Medicine. University of Padova, Italy. Email: [email protected]
Enrico Bucci
Affiliation:
Temple University, Philadelphia, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scientific fraud has increased dramatically in recent times. The main reason has been the exponential increase of the number of researchers, that has greatly exceeded the increase in available resources. This has generated a situation of extreme competition that has dramatically increased the tendency to commit FFP acts. In comparison with the situation in the (distant) past, described in the accompanying contribution (Part I), in which scientific misconduct as a rule concerned research on themes of great significance, today the misconduct generally concerns petty fraudulent acts meant to give the fraudster personal advantages that are frequently illusory. Other factors, more technical in nature, are also having roles in today’s great increase of misconduct cases. Important among them are the ease with which they are now discovered thanks to impressive technological advances in their detection, and the appearance and rapid proliferation of open access predatory journals which do not follow the established peer review publication rules. Cases that deal with themes of great general significance do still occur, and some are examined in this article. At variance with those analysed in Part I they are now rapidly solved by the technical resources available today.

Type
Review Essay
Information
European Review , Volume 30 , Issue 6 , December 2022 , pp. 850 - 871
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Academia Europaea

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baerlocher, MO, O’Brien, J, Newton, M, Gautam, T and Noble, J (2010) Data integrity, reliability, and fraud in medical research. European Journal of Internal Medicine 21, 40–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beall, J (2016) Scholarly open access: critical analysis of scholarly open access publishing (Beall’s blog). Retrieved 1 April 2016, from htts:77scholarlyoa.com; shutdown January 2018, archived at https://archive.org./web/.Google Scholar
Bik, EM, Casadevall, A and Fang, FC (2016) The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications. mBio 7, e00809-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohannon, J (2013) Who’s afraid of peer review? Science 342, 60–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briggs, R and King, TJ (1952) Transplantation of living nuclei from blastula cells into enucleated frogs’ eggs. Proceedings of National Academy of Science, USA 38, 455–463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bucci, E and Carafoli, E (2022) Scientific Fraud. I: Definition, general concepts, historical cases. European Review, submitted.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, KHS, McWhir, J, Ritchie, WA and Wilmut, I (1996) Sheep cloned by nuclear transfer from a cultured cell line. Nature 380, 64–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carafoli, E (2013) A bizarre case of scientific fraud. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 441, 529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carafoli, E (2015) Scientific misconduct: the dark side of science. Rendiconti Lincei, Scienze Fisiche e Naturali 26, 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crews, F (2017) Freud: the Making of an Illusion. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Davis, MS, Riske-Morris, M and Diaz, SR (2007) Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: evidence from ORI case files. Science and Engineering Ethics 13, 395–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawson, C and Woodward, AS (1913) On the discovery of a palaeolithic human skull and mandible in a flint-bearing gravel overlying the Wealden (Hastings Beds) at Piltdown, Fletching (Sussex). Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 69, 117–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, C and Woodward, AS (1914) Supplementary note on the discovery of a palaeolithic skull and mandible at Piltdown (Sussex). Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 70, 82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirac, PAM (1963) The evolution of the physicist’s picture of nature. Scientific American 208, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastwood, S, Derish, P, Leash, E and Ordway, S (1996) Ethical issues in biomedical research: perception and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Science and Engineering Ethics 2, 89–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanelli, D (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 4:e5738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fang, FC, Bennet, JW and Casadevall, A (2013) Males are overrepresented among life science researchers committing scientific misconduct. M. Bio. 4:e00640–e00712.Google ScholarPubMed
Gurdon, JB (1962) The developmental capacity of nuclei taken from intestinal epithelium cells of feeding tadpoles. Journal of Embryonal Morphology 10, 622–640.Google ScholarPubMed
Hvistendahl, M (2012) China’s publication bazaar. Science 342, 1035–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illmensee, K and Hoppe, PC (1981) Nuclear transplantation in Mus Musculus: developmental potential of nuclei from preimplantation embryos. Cell 23, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
John, LK, Lowenstein, G and Prelec, D (2012) Measuring the prevalence of questionable with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science 23, 524–532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalichman, MW and Friedman, PJ (1992) A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine 67, 769–775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machacek, V and Shrolec, M (2021) Predatory publishing in Scopus. Evidence of cross-country differences. Scientometrics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03852-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinson, BC, Anderson, MS and de Vries, R (2005) Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435, 737–738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGrath, J and Solter, D (1984) Inability of mouse blastomere nuclei transferred to enucleated zygotes to support development in vitro. Science 226, 1317–1319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moher, D, Shamseer, L and Cobey, K (2017) Stop this waste of people, animals and money. Nature 549, 23–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mounk, Y (2018) What an audacious hoax reveals about Academia. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/.Google Scholar
Oakley, KP Hoskins, CR (1950) New evidence on the antiquity of Piltdown man. Nature 165, 379–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Severin, A and Low, N (2019) Readers beware! Predatory journals are infiltrating citation databases. International Journal of Public Health 64, 1123–1124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sokal, AD (1996a) Transgressing the boundaries: toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text 46, 2017–2052.Google Scholar
Sokal, AD (1996b) A physicist experiments with cultural studies. Lingua Franca, May-June, 62–64.Google Scholar
Straus, WL (1954) The great Piltdown hoax. Science 119, 265–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waterston, D (1913) The Piltdown mandible. Nature 92, 319.Google Scholar
Webster, F (2005 ) Why Freud Was Wrong: Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis. Oxford: The Orwell Press.Google Scholar
Weiner, WS, Oakley, KP and Le Gros Clark, WE (1953) The solution of the Piltdown problem. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Geology 2, 141–146.Google Scholar
Willadsen, SM (1986) Nuclear transplantation in sheep embryos. Nature 320, 63–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilmut, I and Highfield, R (2006) After Dolly: The Uses and Misuses of Human Cloning. New York: Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Zillboorg, G (1944) Present trends and psychoanalytic theory and practice. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 613–618.Google Scholar