Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case Files

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 09 May 2008

Abstract

There has been relatively little empirical research into the causes of research misconduct. To begin to address this void, the authors collected data from closed case files of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). These data were in the form of statements extracted from ORI file documents including transcripts, investigative reports, witness statements, and correspondence. Researchers assigned these statements to 44 different concepts. These concepts were then analyzed using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. The authors chose a solution consisting of seven clusters: (1) personal and professional stressors, (2) organizational climate, (3) job insecurities, (4) rationalizations A, (5) personal inhibitions, (6) rationalizations B and, (7) personality factors. The authors discuss the implications of their findings for policy and for future research.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This information included fact-finding procedures, hearings, testimony, counter-allegations, evidence, the authority and manner of decision making, and appeal procedures.

References

  1. LaFollette, M. C. (1994). Research misconduct. Society, 31(3), 6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Davis, M. S. (2003). The role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 11(3), 189–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dresser, R. (1993). Defining scientific misconduct: The relevance of mental state. JAMA, 269(7), 895–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Woolf, P. (1981). Fraud in science. The Hastings Center Report, 11(5), 9–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berg, A. O. (1990). Misconduct in science: Does family medicine have a problem? Family Medicine, 22(2), 137–142.

    Google Scholar 

  6. James, W. (1995). Fraud and hoaxes in science. Nature, 377(6549), 474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lock, S. (1997). Fraud in medical research. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 31(1), 90–94.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Royal College of Physicians (1991). Fraud and misconduct in medical research: causes, investigation and prevention. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 25(2), 89–94.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Weed, D. (1998). Preventing scientific misconduct. American Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 125–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dyer, O. (2004). Doctor fabricated research while depressed. BMJ Careers, 329(7473), 996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Broad, W., & Wade, N. (1982). Betrayers of the truth. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Racker, E. (1989). A view of misconduct in science. Science, 339(6220), 91–93.

    Google Scholar 

  13. American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Broome, M. E. (2003). Scientific integrity. Nursing Outlook, 51(5), 197–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chop, R. M., & Silva, M. C. (1991). Scientific fraud: definitions, policies and implications for nursing research. Journal of Professional Nursing, 7(3), 166–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jay, P. (1999). Research misconduct – have we reached a turning point at last? Science and Engineering Ethics, 5(1), 119–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lock, S. (1994). Research misconduct: a brief history and a comparison. Journal of Internal Medicine, 235(2), 123–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tangney, J. P. (1987). Fraud will out – or will it? New Scientist, 115(1572), 62.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mumford, M. D., & Helton, W. B. (2002). Organizational influences on scientific integrity. In N. H. Steneck & M. D. Scheetz (Eds.), Investigating research integrity: Proceedings of the first ORI research conference on research integrity. Rockville, MD: Office of Research Integrity.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Davis, M. S., Wester, K. L., & King, B. (In press). Ethical compromises in counseling research: A pilot study of prevalence and correlates. Journal of Counseling & Development.

  21. Goodstein, D. (2002). Scientific misconduct. Academe, 88(1), 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fuchs, S., & Westervelt, S. D. (1996). Fraud and trust in science. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 39(2), 248–269.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Morrison, R. S. (1990). Disreputable science: Definition and detection. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 15(8), 911–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Davis, M. S., & Riske, M. L. (2002). Preventing scientific misconduct: Insights from convicted offenders. In N. H. Steneck & M. D. Scheetz (Eds.), Investigating research integrity: Proceedings of the first ORI research conference on research integrity. Rockville, MD: Office of Research Integrity

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fox, M. F., & Braxton, J. M. (1994). Misconduct and social control in science: Issues, problems, solution. Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 373–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. James, N., Burrage, J., & Smith, B. (2003). Scientific integrity: A review of The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) reports. Nursing Outlook, 51(5), 239–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hansen, B. C., & Hansen, K. D. (1995). Academic and scientific misconduct: Issues for nursing educators. Journal of Professional Nursing, 11(1), 31–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fletcher, S. W., & Fletcher, R. H. (1994). Publish wisely or perish: Quality rather than quantity in medical writing. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 23(6), 799–800.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jefferson, T. (1998). Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: Scientific misconduct or necessity? Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(2), 135–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lynch, A. (1994). Ethics in dental research. Publication of research: The ethical dimension. Journal of Dental Research, 73(11), 1778–1782.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Smith, M. M. (1992). Chiropractic research: The ethics. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 15(8), 536–541.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Whitbeck, C. (1995). Truth and trustworthiness in research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1(4), 403–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Holaday, M., & Yost, T. E. (1995). A preliminary investigation of ethical problems in publication and research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(2), 281–291.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mojon-Azzi, S. M., & Mojon, D. S. (2004). Scientific misconduct: from salami slicing to data fabrication. Ophthalmic Research, 36(1), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dale, J. A., Schmitt, C. M., & Crosby, L. A. (1999). Misrepresentation of research criteria by orthopaedic residency applicants. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 81(12), 1679–1681.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Frankel, M. S. (1994). Ethics in research: Current issues for dental researchers and their professional society. Journal of Dental Research, 73(11), 1759–1765.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hernon, P., & Altman, E. (1995). Misconduct in academic research: its implications for the service quality provided by university libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 21(1), 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wocial, L. D. (1995). The role of mentors in promoting integrity and preventing scientific misconduct in nursing research. Journal of Professional Nursing, 11(5), 276–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Illingworth, R. (2004). Fraud and other misconduct in biomedical research. British Journal of Neurosurgery, 18(4), 325–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Meyer, III, W. M. & Bernier, Jr., G. M. (2002). Potential cultural factors in scientific misconduct allegations. In N. H. Steneck & M. D. Scheetz (Eds.), Investigating research integrity: Proceedings of the first ORI research conference on research integrity. Rockville, MD: Office of Research Integrity.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jones, A. H. (2003). Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies? Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(2), 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998a). Part I: Methods of collecting and analyzing empirical materials. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative methods (pp. 35–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  46. von Eckartsberg, R. (1996). Existential-phenomenological research. In E. von Eckartsberg (Ed.), Phenomenological inquiry in psychology: Existential and transpersonal dimensions (pp. 3–61). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Webster’sII New College Dictionary (1986). New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.

  48. Trochim, W. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(1), 87–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Trochim, W. (1993). Reliability of concept mapping. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, Dallas, Texas.

  50. Trochim, W. (1989). Concept mapping: Soft science or hard art? Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Davis, J. E. (1989). Construct validity in measurement: A pattern matching approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(1), 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Marquart, J. M. (1989). A pattern matching approach to assess the construct validity of an evaluation measurement. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(1), 37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Linton, R. (1989). Conceptualizing feminism: Clarifying social concepts. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(1), 25–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Shern, D. L., Trochim, W. K., & LaComb, C. A. (1995). The use of concept mapping for assessing fidelity of model transfer: An example from psychiatric rehabilitation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(2), 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Mannes, M. (1989). Using concept mapping for planning the implementation of a social technology. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(1), 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wenger, N. S., Korenman, S. G., Berk, R., & Berry, S. (1997). The ethics of scientific research: An analysis of focus groups of scientists and institutional representatives. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 45(6), 371–380.

    Google Scholar 

  57. SPSS, I. (2004). SPSS 13.0 for windows. http://www.spss.com

  58. Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Heitman, E., & Bulger, R. E. (2005). Assessing the educational literature in the responsible conduct of research for core content. Accountability in Research, 12(3), 207–224.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a contract awarded to Justice Research & Advocacy, Inc. by the Office of Research Integrity. The findings and conclusions reported herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Office of Research Integrity, the Office of Public Health and Science, or the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. The authors would like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for numerous helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark S. Davis.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9070-9

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davis, M.S., Riske-Morris, M. & Diaz, S.R. Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case Files. Sci Eng Ethics 13, 395–414 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2

Keywords

Navigation