Understanding Research Misconduct: A Comparative Analysis of 120 Cases of Professional Wrongdoing

64Citations
Citations of this article
136Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We analyzed 40 cases of falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism (FFP), comparing them to other types of wrongdoing in research (n = 40) and medicine (n = 40). Fifty-one variables were coded from an average of 29 news or investigative reports per case. Financial incentives, oversight failures, and seniority correlate significantly with more serious instances of FFP. However, most environmental variables were nearly absent from cases of FFP and none were more strongly present in cases of FFP than in other types of wrongdoing. Qualitative data suggest FFP involves thinking errors, poor coping with research pressures, and inadequate oversight. We offer recommendations for education, institutional investigations, policy, and further research. © 2013 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

DuBois, J. M., Anderson, E. E., Chibnall, J., Carroll, K., Gibb, T., Ogbuka, C., & Rubbelke, T. (2013). Understanding Research Misconduct: A Comparative Analysis of 120 Cases of Professional Wrongdoing. Accountability in Research, 20(5–6), 320–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822248

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free