Skip to main content
Log in

How Frequently do Allegations of Scientific Misconduct Occur in Ecology and Evolution, and What Happens Afterwards?

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

Abstract

Scientific misconduct obstructs the advance of knowledge in science. Its impact in some disciplines is still poorly known, as is the frequency in which it is detected. Here, I examine how frequently editors of ecology and evolution journals detect scientist misconduct. On average, editors managed 0.114 allegations of misconduct per year. Editors considered 6 of 14 allegations (42.9%) to be true, but only in 2 cases were the authors declared guilty, the remaining being dropped for lack of proof. The annual rate of allegations that were probably warranted was 0.053, although the rate of demonstrated misconduct was 0.018, while the rate of false or erroneous allegations was 0.024. Considering that several cases of misconduct are probably not reported, these findings suggest that editors detect less than one-third of all fraudulent papers.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Claxton, L. D. (2005). Scientific authorship Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutation Research-Reviews in Mutation Research, 589, 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.

  • Gardner, W., Lidz, C. W., & Hartwig, K. C. (2005). Authors’ reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 26, 244–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, J. L. (1989). On the potential cost effectiveness of scientific audits. Accountability in Research, 1, 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judson, H. F. (2004). The great betrayal: Fraud in science. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • List, J. A., Bailey, C. D., Euzent, P. J., & Martin, T. L. (2001). Academic economists behaving badly? A survey on three areas of unethical behaviour. Economic Inquiry, 39, 162–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E. (2000). How prevalent is fraud? That’s a million-dollar question. Science, 290, 1662–1663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomerie, R. M., & Birkhead, T. (2005). A beginner’s guide to scientific misconduct. International Society for Behavioral Ecology Newsletter, 17, 16–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 53–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., & Smith, T. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions—The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 275–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work would not be possible without the collaboration of Antonio López Orta, Anders P. Møller, David Nesbitt, the staff of the Estación Experimental de Zonas Áridas, and two anonymous referees.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregorio Moreno-Rueda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moreno-Rueda, G. How Frequently do Allegations of Scientific Misconduct Occur in Ecology and Evolution, and What Happens Afterwards?. Sci Eng Ethics 19, 93–96 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9289-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9289-8

Keywords

Navigation