A
review on the diverse types of research misconduct
Mohsen Rezaeian
Correspondence:
Professor Mohsen Rezaeian
PhD, Epidemiologist
Social Medicine Department
Occupational Environmental Research Center
Rafsanjan Medical School
Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences
Rafsanjan-Iran
Tel:03915234003
Fax:03915225209
Email:
moeygmr2@yahoo.co.uk
|
Abstract
Research
misconduct encompasses a vast array of
research misbehaviors, from very serious
to less serious. We could name very serious
misbehavior as research fraud and less
serious types as questionable research
practices. The aim of the present article
is to overview the diverse types of research
misconduct.
Key words: Research
misconduct, Research fraud, Questionable
research practice
|
Research misconduct encompasses a vast array of
behaviors, from very serious research misbehavior
such as data fabrication to the less serious aspects
such as authorship disputes. It would be possible
to categorize very serious misbehaviors as research
fraud and less serious types as questionable research
practices.
From one hand, evidence suggests that different
research misconduct, either research fraud or
questionable research practices might have substantial
damaging impact on the advancement of human knowledge.
On the other hand, some novice and young researchers
might innocently commit such misconduct. Therefore,
the aim of the present article is to overview
diverse types of research misconduct.
Data fabrication and data falsification
Data fabrication means inventing fake data whilst
data falsification implies distorting existing
data to obtain some specific results. Both of
these research misbehaviors are among the most
serious research misconduct i.e. research fraud.
Plagiarism and self-plagiarism
Plagiarism implies stealing other people's ideas
and self-plagiarism means stealing one's own
idea both without providing proper attribution.
Plagiarism and self-plagiarism could start from
one sentence and might extend to one paragraph
and even a full article. Plagiarism especially
in larger text copying is categorized as research
fraud.
Duplicate publication, redundant publication
and salami publication
Duplicate publication indicates publishing two
identical articles whilst redundant publication
involves publication of two rather similar articles.
Salami publication also denotes publishing two
or more articles from a single study. It should
be noted that only large epidemiological studies
might permit publication of more than one article.
Whilst duplicate publication can be categorized
as a serious research misconduct, redundant
and salami publication might be considered as
less serious forms.
Failing to gain approval for the research
proposal from an ethics committee for research
Failing to gain approval for the research proposal
from an ethics committee for research could
be regarded as a serious type of research misconduct.
This gets worse when the proposal deals with
interventional design in human subjects such
as in clinical trials. Therefore, it is highly
suggested that any research proposal should
receive approval from an ethics committee for
research.
Conducting research in humans and/or animals
without considering ethical issues
Approval for the research proposal from an ethics
committee for research is a necessary but not
sufficient step for avoiding research misconduct.
In addition, researchers should take into account
any relevant ethical approved guidelines when
dealing with humans and/or animals subjects.
Failing to consider such ethical issues could
be regarded as serious types of research misconduct.
Ignoring outliers, ignoring missing data,
reporting post-hoc analyses without declaring
them
Any wrong doings in the process of data analyses
such as ignoring outliers, ignoring missing
data, reporting post-hoc analyses without declaring
them, could have serious impacts on the results.
Therefore, it is necessary that researchers
admit and declare any outliers and/or missing
data. Furthermore, carrying out any type of
post-hoc analyses should be declared in advance
by the researchers.
Authorship disputes
Authorship disputes encompass any disagreements
between researchers about the names and orders
of the authors in a given paper. Unfortunately,
evidence suggests that such questionable research
practice is rather common in different countries
around the world. Therefore, it is up to authors
to consider the authorship criteria in order
to name in the right order only true authors
and avoiding guest or ghost authorships.
Failing to disclose a conflict of interest
Conflict of interest implies that researchers,
reviewers and editors have a relationship either
financial and/or non-financial to a person,
school of thought, organization; etc that might
cause unwanted impacts on the process of scientific
publication. The most important way to avoid
any research misconduct regarding conflict of
interest is to disclose any possible conflicts
before publishing a paper.
Failure to carry out a thorough literature
review before commencing new research
Failure to carry out a thorough literature review
before commencing new research is judged to
be a questionable research practice. The reason
for this is too obvious, since inadequate literature
review might lead to flawed or repetitive research.
Data fabrication, data falsification, plagiarism,
self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, redundant
publication, salami publication, failing to gain
approval for the research proposal from an ethics
committee for research, conducting research in
humans and/or animals without considering ethical
issues, ignoring outliers, ignoring missing data,
reporting post-hoc analyses without declaring
it, authorship disputes, failing to disclose a
conflict of interest and failure to carry out
a thorough literature review before commencing
new research, are different types of research
misconduct.
Researchers, especially novices, should try to
avoid all types of research misconduct through
recognition of these principles. We all should
bear in mind that the advance of human civilisation
has always been tied up with the advance in knowledge
and technology and the global sharing of the same.
Rezaeian M. How to supervise
a medical thesis. Middle
East J Family Med. 2014;
12(5) :39-41.
Fisher ER, Partin KM.
The challenges for scientists
in avoiding plagiarism.
Account Res. 2014;21(6):353-65.
Rezaeian M. How to prepare
a thesis for submission.
Middle East J Business.
2014; 9(2) :41-43.
Fierz K, Gennaro S, Dierickx
K, Van Achterberg T, Morin
KH, De Geest S. Scientific
Misconduct: Also an Issue
in Nursing Science? J
Nurs Scholarsh. 2014 Apr
23. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12082.
Farthing MJ. Research
misconduct: a grand global
challenge for the 21st
Century. J Gastroenterol
Hepatol. 2014;29(3):422-7.
Lahey T. The ethics of
clinical research in low-
and middle-income countries.
Handb Clin Neurol. 2013;118:301-13.
Bosch X. Research integrity:
Journals should be clear
on misconduct. Nature.
2013;497(7447):40.
Gupta A. Fraud and misconduct
in clinical research:
A concern. Perspect Clin
Res. 2013;4(2):144-7
Ana J, Koehlmoos T, Smith
R, Yan LL. Research misconduct
in low- and middle-income
countries. PLoS Med. 2013;10(3):e1001315.
Tanimoto T, Kami M, Shibuya
K. Research misconduct
and scientific integrity:
a call for a global forum.
Lancet. 2013;382(9896):940.
Rezaeian M. Some personal
thoughts on the advantages
and disadvantages of undergraduate
students' health research.
South Asia Journal of
Family Medicine. 2012;
4 :51-53.
Kornfeld DS. Perspective:
research misconduct: the
search for a remedy. Acad
Med. 2012;87(7):877-82.
|
