Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Review of the Types of Scientific Misconduct in Biomedical Research

  • Published:
Journal of Academic Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biomedical research has increased in magnitude over the last two decades. Increasing number of researchers has led to increase in competition for scarce resources. Researchers have often tried to take the shortest route to success which may involve performing fraudulent research. Science suffers from unethical research as much time, effort and cost is involved in exposing fraud and setting the standards right. It is better for all students of science to be aware of the methods used in fraudulent research so that such research can be detected early. Biomedical research is one area that seems to have attracted maximum numbers of fraudulent researchers; hence this article devotes itself to biomedical research scenario.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altman, D. G. (1994). The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 308, 283–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, D. E., & Bero, L. A. (1998). Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 1566–1570. doi:10.1001/jama.279.19.1566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bégaud, B., & Verdoux, H. (2001). Did the US boycott of French products spread to include scientific output? BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 329, 1430–1431. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7480.1430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekelman, J. E., Liu, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 89, 454–465. doi:10.1001/jama.289.4.454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, D. M., & Taylor, D. M. (2003). Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine, 15, 263–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bero, L. A., Galbraith, A., & Rennie, D. (1992). The publications of sponsored symposiums in medical journals. The New England Journal of Medicine, 327, 1135–1140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, C. H. (1974). A short essay on the importance of dogs in medical research. The Physiologist, 17, 437–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black’s Law Dictionary (1979).St Paul, Minnesota: West, page 1882

  • Brian, C. M., & Melissa, S. A. (2005). Raymond de Vries: scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–736. doi:10.1038/435737a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broad, W. J. (1980). Would-be academician pirates papers: five of his published papers are demonstrable plagiarisms, and more than 55 others are suspect. Science, 208, 1438–1440. doi:10.1126/science.208.4451.1438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (1998). Peer review for journals as it stands today—part 2. Science Communication, 19, 277–306. doi:10.1177/1075547098019004002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (2003). Rejecting nobel class articles and resisting nobel class discoveries. Nature, 425(6959), 645 Oct.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commander, H. (2000). Biotechnology industry responds to gene therapy death. Nature Medicine, 6, 118. doi:10.1038/72181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, M. M., & Gatz, M. (1992). Determination of authorship credit in published dissertations. Psychological Science, 3, 354–357. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00046.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couzin, J. (2001). Scientific misconduct: MIT terminates researcher over data fabrication. Science, 310, 578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couzin, J., & Schirber, M. (2006). Fraud upends oral cancer field, casting doubts on prevention trial. Science, 311(5760), 448–449. doi:10.1126/science.311.5760.448a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culliton, B. J. (1983). Coping with fraud: the Darsee case. Science, 220, 31–35. doi:10.1126/science.6828878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curfman, G. D., Morrissey, S., Drazen, J. M. (2006). N Engl J Med Expression of concern: Sudbø et al: DNA content as a prognostic marker in patients with oral leukoplakia, N Engl J Med 2001, 344, 1270–8 and Sudbø J et al: Influence of resection and aneuploidy on mortality in oral leukoplakia, N Engl J Med 2004, 350, 1405–13. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa033374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, R. A. (1986). Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 1, 155–158. doi:10.1007/BF02602327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deb, K., Sivaguru, M., Yong, H. Y., & Roberts, M. R. (2006). Cdx2 gene expression and trophectoderm lineage specification in mouse embryos. Science, 311(5763), 992–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2007). Impact of the impact factor in Spain (rapid response to Brown. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 20.

  • Deyo, R. A., Psaty, B. M., Simon, G., et al. (1997). The messenger under attack—intimidation of researchers by special interest groups. The New England Journal of Medicine, 336, 1176–1180. doi:10.1056/NEJM199704173361611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Editorial (2005). Nature Materials, 4(1), 1305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmunds, L. H. (2007). Journal ethics. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 84, 717–719. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2007.07.045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel, E. J., & Steiner, D. (1995). Institutional conflict of interest. The New England Journal of Medicine, 332(4), 262–268. doi:10.1056/NEJM199501263320412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernest, E., Resch, K. L., & Uner, E. M. (1992). Reviewer bias. Annals of Internal Medicine, 116(11), 958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Errami, M., & Garner, H. (2008). A tale of two citations. Nature, 451(7177), 397–399. doi:10.1038/451397a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleet, C. M., Rosser, M. F. N., Zufall, R. A., et al. (2006). Hiring criteria in biology departments of academic institutions. Bioscience, 56, 430–436. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0430:HCIBDO]2.0.CO;2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florey, H. (1962). Prestige in academic scientific research. Nature, 193(4820), 1017–1018. doi:10.1038/1931017a0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, J. K. (1956). Pathogenesis of Toxoplasmosis and of infections resembling Toxoplasma. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 64, 215–251. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1956.tb36616.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, L. S., & Richter, E. D. (2004). Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19(1), 51–56. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30617.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1979). The ‘obliteration phenomenon’ in science—and the advantage of being obliterated. Current Contents, 51/52, 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1980). From citation amnesia to bibliographic plagiarism. Current Contents, 23, 5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1982). More on the ethics of scientific publication: abuses of authorship attribution and citation amnesia undermine the reward system of science. Current Contents, 30, 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1987). Contemplating a science court: on the question of institutionalising scientific fact finding. Scientist (Philadelphia, Pa.), 1(6), 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1991). Bibliographic negligence: a serious transgression. Scientist (Philadelphia, Pa.), 5(23), 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2002). Demand citation vigilance. Scientist (Philadelphia, Pa.), 16(2), 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, I. (2001). The Disregard Syndrome: a menace to honest science. Scientist (Philadelphia, Pa.), 15(24), 51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenacre, P. (1978). Note on plagiarism: the Henley-Stevenson quarrel. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 26, 507–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajra, A., Liu, P. P., Speck, N. A., & Collins, F. S. (1995). Over expression of core-binding factor alpha (CBF alpha) reverses cellular transformation by CBF beta smooth muscle myosin heavy chain chimeric oncoprotein. Molecular and Cellular Biology, 15, 4980–4889.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hixson, J. (1976). The patch work mouse. New York: Anchor/Doubleday Garden City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, W. S., Roh, S. I., Lee, B. C., et al. (2005). Patient specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Science, 308, 1777–1783. doi:10.1126/science.1112286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, D. (2006). Editorial retraction. Science, 20, 311 (5759), 335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerns, D. G., Cransman, R. S., Durand, K. T. H., et al. (1998). Flock worker’s lung: chronic interstitial lung disease in the nylon flocking industry. Annals of Internal Medicine, 129(4), 261–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kliewer, M. A., et al. (2004). Peer review at the american journal of roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology, 183, 1545–1550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knox, R. A. (1983). Deeper problems for Darsee: emory probe. JAMA, 249(21), 2867 , 2871–2873, 2876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwok, L. S. (2005). The white bull effect: abusive co-authorship and publication parasitism. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(9), 554–556. doi:10.1136/jme.2004.010553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. M. (1998). US and and non US submissions. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 246–247. doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, M. E. (1990). Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 539–543. doi:10.1901/jaba.1990.23-539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lock, S. (1994). Does editorial peer review work? Annals of Internal Medicine, 121(1), 60–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lock, S. (1995). Lessons from the Pearce affair: handling scientific fraud. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 310, 1547–1548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E. (1995). Suit alleges misuse of peer review. Science, 270, 1912–1914. doi:10.1126/science.270.5244.1912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R. (1984). Plagiarism and responsibility. Journal of tertiary educational administration, 6, 183–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science pp. 402–403. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1979). Citation indexing—its theory and application in science, technology and humanities. New York: Wiley (Foreword by E. Garfield).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, J. L. (1993). Data torturing. The New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 1196–1199. doi:10.1056/NEJM199310143291613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moses III, H., & Martin, J. (2001). Academic relationships with industry: a new model for biomedical research. JAMA, 285(7), 933−935 Feb1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Casson, D. H., et al. (2004). Retraction of an interpretation. Lancet, 363(9411), 75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osmond, D. H. (1983). Malice’s wonderland: Research funding and peer review. Journal of Neurobiology, 14, 95−112. doi:10.1002/neu.480140202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pande, P. G., Shukla, R. R., & Sekariah, P. C. (1961). Toxoplasma from eggs of the domestic fowl (Gallus gallus). Science, 133, 648. doi:10.1126/science.133.3453.648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parry, J. (2006). University clears scientist of misconduct but says his conduct was misbehaviour. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 332, 3. 82. doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7538.382-d.

  • Ray, J. G. (2002). Judging the judges. The Quarterly Journal of Medicine, 95, 769–774.

    Google Scholar 

  • Relman, A. S. (1983). Lessons from the Darsee affair. The New England Journal of Medicine, 308, 1415–1417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, D. (1991). Editors and advertisements: what responsibility do the editors have for the advertisements in their journals? Journal of the American Medical Association, 265, 2394. doi:10.1001/jama.265.18.2394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, D. (1998). Freedom and responsibility in medical publication. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 300–302. doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rochon, P. A., Gurwitz, J. H., Cheung, M., Hayes, J. A., & Chalmers, T. C. (1994). Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 108–113. doi:10.1001/jama.272.2.108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, K. J. (1993). Conflict of interest: the new McCarthyism in science. Journal of the American Medical Association, 269(21), 2782–2784. doi:10.1001/jama.269.21.2782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, D. J. (2000). Medical professionalism—focussing on the real issues. The New England Journal of Medicine, 342, 1284–1286. doi:10.1056/NEJM200004273421711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schachman, H. K. (1993). What is misconduct in science? Science, 261, 148–149. doi:10.1126/science.8305005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. R. (2007). Pseudo evidence based medicine: what it is, and what to do about it, Clinical Governance. International Journal (Toronto, Ont.), 12(1), 42–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, T. J. (2001). Suppression of scientific research: bahramdipity and nulltiple scientific discoveries. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7, 77–104. doi:10.1007/s11948-001-0025-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorokin, P. (1956). Fads and foibles on modern sociology and related sciences p. 357. Chicago: H. Regency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stelfox, H. T., Chua, G., O’Rourke, K., & Detsky, A. S. (1998). Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium channel antagonists. The New England Journal of Medicine, 338, 101–105. doi:10.1056/NEJM199801083380206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stricker, R. B. (1985). Target platelet antigen in homosexual men with immune thrombocytopenia. The New England Journal of Medicine, 313, 1315–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudbø, J., Lee, J. J., Lippman, S. M., et al. (2005). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents and the risk of oral cancer: a nested case-control study. Lancet, 366(9494), 1359–1366. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67488-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summerlin, W. T., Miller, G. E., & Good, R. A. (1973). Successful tissue and organ transplantation without immunosuppression. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 52, 349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. F. (1993). Understanding financial conflicts of interest. The New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 573–576. doi:10.1056/NEJM199308193290812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toy, J. (2002). Ingelfinger rule. Science Editor, 25(6), 195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valderas, J. M., Bentley, R. A., Beckley, R., et al. (2007). Why do team-authored papers get cited more? Science, 317, 14 Sept, 5844, 1496b.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., et al. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet, 351(9103), 637–641. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weissman, G. (2006). Science fraud: from patch work mouse to patch work data. The FASEB Journal, 20, 587–590. doi:10.1096/fj.06-0401ufm.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenneras, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature, 387, 341–343. doi:10.1038/387341a0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. K. (1944). Human nature in science. Science, 100(2597), 299–305. doi:10.1126/science.100.2597.299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wutchy, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316, 1036–1039. doi:10.1126/science.1136099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckermann, H. A. (1968). Patterns of name-ordering among authors of scientific papers: a study of social symbolism and its ambiguity. American Journal of Sociology, 74, 276–291. doi:10.1086/224641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 503, Nisarga, Royal Park Residency, JP Nagar 9th Phase, Bangalore, Karnataka, 560062, India

    Malhar N. Kumar

  2. HOSMAT Hospital, 45, Magrath Road, Off Richmond Road, Ashok Nagar, Bangalore, 560025, India

    Malhar N. Kumar

Authors
  1. Malhar N. Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malhar N. Kumar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kumar, M.N. A Review of the Types of Scientific Misconduct in Biomedical Research. J Acad Ethics 6, 211–228 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9068-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9068-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation