Insights on the Socio-Economic Impacts of Research Misconduct
Copyright (c) 2024 Rodrigues Rowena, Pizzolato Daniel
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Abstract
Research misconduct (RM) and questionable research practices (QRPs) have a considerable impact on researchers, economy and society. Using a socio-economic impact assessment methodology, this article identifies and assesses their impacts. The objective is to help support the measures developed to promote research ethics and research integrity principles through shared responsibility (individual and institutional) and improve education and training. The article presents recommendations for policy and future research as part of a cohesive framework that takes socio-economic impacts into account. This qualitative study advances and updates current knowledge on the impacts of RM, enriching existing research by introducing new insights, especially regarding socio-economic dimensions, affected stakeholders, and the relevance and significance of these impacts.
Keywords:
How to Cite
References
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2017). Barrier Identification and Mitigation Tool. Online: https://tinyurl.com/4tfee6mm
Andorno, R. (2021). Why Does Scientific Misconduct Occur? Integrity. Online: https://h2020integrity.eu/why-does-scientific-misconduct-occur/
Arksey, H. & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8(1), 19–32. Online: https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Asghari, M. H., Moloudizargari, M. & Abdollahi, M. (2017). Misconduct in Research and Publication: a Dilemma That Is Taking Place. Iranian Biomedical Journal, 21(4), 203–204.
Baghramian, M. & Caprioglio Panizza, S. (2022). Scepticism and the Value of Distrust. Inquiry, 1–28. Online: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2022.2135821
Barde, F., Peiffer-Smadja, N. & de La Blanchardière, A. (2020). Fraude scientifique: une menace majeure pour la recherche médicale [Scientific Misconduct: A Major Threat for Medical Research]. La Revue de Médecine Interne, 41(5), 330–334. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revmed.2020.02.004
BEYOND (s. a.). It’s the Orchard, Not the Apples. Online: https://beyondbadapples.eu/
Boetto, E., Golinelli, D., Carullo, G. & Fantini, M. P. (2021). Frauds in Scientific Research and How to Possibly Overcome Them. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(12). Online: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106639
Bonetta, L. (2006). The Aftermath of Scientific Fraud. Cell, 124(5), 873–875. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.02.032
Boyle, P. (2022, May 4). Why Do So Many Americans Distrust Science? AAMC. Online: https://www.aamc.org/news/why-do-so-many-americans-distrust-science
Bruton, S. V., Brown, M. A., Sacco, D. F. & Didlake, R. (2019). Testing an Active Intervention to Deter Researchers’ Use of Questionable Research Practices. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4(24). Online: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073- 019-0085-3
Chalmers, I. (1990). Underreporting Research Is Scientific Misconduct. JAMA, 263(10), 1405–1408. Online: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100121018
Couzin, J. (2006). Scientific Misconduct. Truth and Consequences. Science, 313(5791), 1222–1226. Online: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.313.5791.1222
Dooley, J. J. & Kerch, H. M. (2000). Evolving Research Misconduct Policies and Their Significance for Physical Scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics, 6(1), 109–121. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-000-0029-8
Dougherty, M. V. (2019). The Pernicious Effects of Compression Plagiarism on Scholarly Argumentation. Argumentation, 33(3), 391–412. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09481-3
Eckstein, M. A. (2003). Combating Academic Fraud: Towards a Culture of Integrity. UNESCO IIEP. Online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000133038
Elliott, S. (2016). Bad Science: Cause and Consequence. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 105(4), 1358–1361. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2016.01.002
Elsayed, D. E. M. (2020). Fraud and Misconduct in Publishing Medical Research. Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences, 15(2), 131–141. Online: https://doi.org/10.18502/sjms.v15i2.6693
Enago Academy (2016). The Effect of Scientific Misconduct on a Researcher’s Career. Online: https://tinyurl.com/4dyuh2fe
European Commission (2016). Define the Global and Financial Impact of Research Misconduct (DEFORM). Online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/710246
Evans, T. R., Pownall, M., Collins, E., Henderson, E. L., Pickering, J. S., O’Mahony, A., Zaneva, M., Jaquiery, M. & Dumbalska, T. (2022). A Network of Change: United Action on Research Integrity. BMC Research Notes, 15, 1–7. Online: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06026-y
Fetterman, A. K. & Sassenberg, K. (2015). The Reputational Consequences of Failed Replications and Wrongness Admission among Scientists. PLoS ONE, 10(12). Online: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143723
Fong, E. A. & Wilhite, A. W. (2021). The Impact of False Investigators on Grant Funding. Research Policy, 50(10). Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104366
Fong, E. A., Wilhite, A. W., Hickman, C. & Lee, Y. (2020). The Legal Consequences of Research Misconduct: False Investigators and Grant Proposals. Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics, 48(2), 331–339. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110520935347
Frias-Navarro, D., Pascual-Soler, M., Perezgonzalez, J., Monterde-i-Bort, H. & Pascual-Llobell, J. (2021). Spanish Scientists’ Opinion about Science and Researcher Behavior. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 24. Online: https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2020.59
Garfield, E. (1987). What Do We Know about Fraud and Other Forms of Intellectual Dishonesty in Science? Part 2: Why Does Fraud Happen and What are Its Effects? Current Contents Clinical Medicine, 15(15), 3–10. Online: http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v10p093y1987.pdf
Glenna, L. & Bruce, A. (2021). Suborning Science for Profit: Monsanto, Glyphosate, and Private Science Research Misconduct. Research Policy, 50(7). Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104290
Gopalakrishna, G., Ter Riet, G., Vink, G., Stoop, I., Wicherts, J. M. & Bouter, L. M. (2022). Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices, Research Misconduct and Their Potential Explanatory Factors: A Survey Among Academic Researchers in The Netherlands. PLoS ONE, 17(2). Online: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023
Golden, J., Mazzotta, C. M. & Zittel-Barr, K. (2023). Systemic Obstacles to Addressing Research Misconduct in Higher Education: A Case Study. Journal of Academic Ethics, 21, 71–82. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09438-w
Grant, D. B., Kovács, Gy. & Spens, K. (2018). Questionable Research Practices in Academia: Antecedents and Consequences. European Business Review, 30(2), 101–127. Online: https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-12-2016-0155
Grant, M. J. & Booth, A. (2009). A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. Online: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Grech, V. (2019). Write a Scientific Paper (WASP): Academic Hoax and Fraud. Early Human Development, 129, 87–89. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.12.005
Greenhalgh, T. & Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and Efficiency of Search Methods in Systematic Reviews of Complex Evidence: Audit of Primary Sources. British Medical Journal, 331, 1064–1065. Online: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68
Grimes, D. R., Bauch, C. T. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Modelling Science Trustworthiness under Publish or Perish Pressure. Royal Society Open Science, 5(1). Online: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171511
Guraya, S. Y., Norman, R. I., Khoshhal, K. I., Guraya, S. S. & Forgione, A. (2016). Publish or Perish Mantra in the Medical Field: A Systematic Review of the Reasons, Consequences and Remedies. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 32(6), 1562–1567. Online: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.326.10490
Habib, A. S. & Gan, T. J. (2013). Scientific Fraud: Impact of Fujii’s Data on Our Current Knowledge and Practice for the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 116(3), 520–522. Online: https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e31827ab7d8
Hagberg, J. M. (2020). The Unfortunately Long Life of Some Retracted Biomedical Research Publications. Journal of Applied Physiology, 128(5), 1381–1391. Online: https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00003.2020
Holbeach, N., Freckelton, I. & Mol, B. W. (2022). Journal Editors and Publishers' Legal Obligations with Respect to Medical Research Misconduct. Research Ethics, 19(2), 107–120. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221147440
Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., Pratt, T. C. & Mays, R. D. (2020). The Perceived Causes of Research Misconduct Among Faculty Members in the Natural, Social, and Applied Sciences. Studies in Higher Education, 45(11), 2162–2174. Online: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1593352
Horbach, S. P. J. M., Breit, E., Halffman, W., Mamelund, S.-E. (2020). On the Willingness to Report and the Consequences of Reporting Research Misconduct: The Role of Power Relations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(3), 1595–1623. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00202-8
Hussinger, K. & Pellens, M. (2019). Guilt by Association: How Scientific Misconduct Harms Prior Collaborators. Research Policy, 48(2), 516–530. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.012
Khadilkar, S. S. (2018). The Plague of Plagiarism: Prevention and Cure!!! The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India, 68(6), 425–431. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-018-1182-9
Kim, J. & Park, K. (2013). Ethical Modernization: Research Misconduct and Research Ethics Reforms in Korea Following the Hwang Affair. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 355–380. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9341-8
Kim, M., Kim, J. & Bak, H.-J. (2018). Between Fraud and Hope: Stem Cell Research in Korea after the Hwang Affair. East Asian Science Technology and Society – An International Journal, 12(2), 143–164. Online: https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-4201055
Krishna, A. & Peter, S. M. (2018). Questionable Research Practices in Student Final Theses – Prevalence, Attitudes, and the Role of the Supervisor’s Perceived Attitudes. PLoS ONE, 13(8). Online: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203470
Leiserowitz, A. A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., Smith, N. & Dawson, E. (2013). Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), 818–837. Online: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212458272
Li, W., Gurrin, L. C. & Mol, B. W. (2022). Violation of Research Integrity Principles Occurs More Often Than We Think. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 44(2), 207–209. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.11.022
Loscalzo, J. (2012). Irreproducible Experimental Results Causes, (Mis)interpretations, and Consequences. Circulation, 125(10), 1211–1214. Online: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.098244
Memon, S. A., Makovi, K. & AlShebli, B. (2023). Characterizing the Effect of Retractions on Scientific Careers. arXiv. Online: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.06710
Michalek, A. M., Hutson, A. D., Wicher, C. P. & Trump, D. L. (2010). The Costs and Underappreciated Consequences of Research Misconduct: A Case Study. Plos Medicine, 7(8). Online: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000318
Moore, R. A., Derry, S. & McQuay, H. J. (2010). Fraud or Flawed: Adverse Impact of Fabricated or Poor Quality Research. Anaesthesia, 65(4), 327–330. Online: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06295.x
Morreim, E. H. (2021). Corporations, High-Stakes Biomedical Research, and Research Misconduct: Yes They Can (and Sometimes Do). Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 8(1). Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab014
U.S. National Science Foundation (s. a.). Research Misconduct. Online: https://oig.nsf.gov/investigations/research-misconduct
Department of Health (2018). Implementation Guide and Toolkit for National Clinical Guidelines. Online: https://tinyurl.com/cdbp4ymm
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., Stewart, L. A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A. C., Welch, V. A., Whiting, P. & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Update Guideline for Reporting Systematic Review. PLoS Medicine, 18(3). Online: https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PMED.1003583
Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D. & Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for Conducting Systematic Scoping Reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 141–146. Online: https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000050
Pickett, J. T. & Roche, S. P. (2018). Questionable, Objectionable or Criminal? Public Opinion on Data Fraud and Selective Reporting in Science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(1), 151–171. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9886-2
Pizzolato, D., Abdi, S. & Dierickx, K. (2020). Collecting and Characterizing Existing and Freely Accessible Research Integrity Educational Resources. Accountability in Research, 27(4), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1736571
Raj, A. T., Patil, S., Sarode, S. & Salameh, Z. (2018). P-Hacking: A Wake-Up Call for the Scientific Community. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 1813–1814. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9984-1
Rodrigues, R. & Rituerto, M. D. (2022). Socio-Economic Impact Assessments for New and Emerging Technologies. Journal of Responsible Technology, 9. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2021.100019
Rodrigues, R. & Pizzolato, D. (2024). Insights on the Socio-Economic Impacts of Research Misconduct. Zenodo. [Preprint.] Online: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11348059
Rowbotham, M. C. (2008). The Impact of Selective Publication on Clinical Research in Pain. Pain, 140(3), 401–404. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2008.10.026
Roy, S. & Edwards, M. A. (2023). NSF Fellows’ Perceptions About Incentives, Research Misconduct, and Scientific Integrity in STEM Academia. Scientific Reports, 13. Online: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32445-3
Ščepanović, R., Labib, K., Buljan, I., Tijdink, J., & Marušić, A. (2021). Practices for Research Integrity Promotion in Research Performing Organisations and Research Funding Organisations: A Scoping Review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(1), 4. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00281-1
Shen, W., Liu, Y., Wan, G., Shi, J. & Liu, W. (2024). Performance Evaluation Considering Academic Misconduct of China’s Higher Education Institutions. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 91. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2023.101752
Science Europe (2015a). Briefing Paper on Research Integrity: What it Means, Why it Is Important and How we Might Protect it. Online: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5060051
Science Europe (2015b). Seven Reasons to Care About Integrity in Research. Online: https://tinyurl.com/463kj9zs
Stavale, R., Ferreira, G. I., Galvão, J. A. M., Zicker, F., Novaes, M. R. C. G., Oliveira, C. M. D. & Guilhem, D. (2019). Research Misconduct in Health and Life Sciences Research: A Systematic Review of Retracted Literature from Brazilian Institutions. PLoS ONE, 14(4). Online: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214272
Sterken, E. (2006). The Impact of Scientific Misconduct on Child Health. Public Health Nutrition, 92(2), 273–276. Online: https://doi.org/10.1079/PHN2006951
Stern, A. M., Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G. & Fang, F. C. (2014). Financial Costs and Personal Consequences of Research Misconduct Resulting in Retracted Publications. eLife, 3. Online: https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.02956
Troughton, L. & Obasi, A. (2022). An Exploration of Practices Affecting Research Integrity in Global Health Partnerships. BMJ Global Health, 7(8). Online: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009092
UN Environment Programme (2019). Part B: Policies, Goals, Objectives and Environmental Governance: An Assessment of their Effectiveness, Chapter 10. Online: https://tinyurl.com/3e6khpvd
Ware, J. J. & Munafo, M. R. (2015). Significance Chasing in Research Practice: Causes, Consequences and Possible Solutions. Addiction, 110(1), 4–8. Online: https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12673
Wellcome (2021). Research Misconduct – Grant Funding. Online: https://wellcome.org/grant-funding/guidance/research-misconduct
White, C. (2015). Author of Retracted BMJ Paper is Ordered to Pay $C1.6m to Canadian Broadcaster. British Medical Journal, 351. Online: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6211
Wible, J. R. (2023). The Economics of Scientific Misconduct. Fraud, Replication Failure, and Research Ethics in Empirical Inquiry. Routledge.
Yang, J., Yang, L., Quan, H. & Zeng, Y. (2021). Implementation Barriers: A TASKS Framework. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 25(3–4), 1–14. Online: https://doi.org/10.3233/JID-210011
The BEYOND Horizon Europe project – Beyond Bad Apples: Towards a Behavioural and Evidence-Based Approach to Promote Research Ethics and Research Integrity in Europe (2023–2025) is funded by the European Union, Grant agreement ID: 101094714. Trilateral Research is supported by UKRI Grant 10062742. This article and its contents reflect only the views of the authors and does not intend to reflect those of the European Commission or the UKRI. The European Commission or the UKRI is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. The authors would like to thank David Barnard-Wills and Ian Slesinger of Trilateral Research (reviews), the impact identification consultation participants (Sandra Bendiscioli, Martin Canter, Hugh Desmond, Kris Dierickx, Anja Gilis, Panagiotis Kavouras, Teodora Konach, Ana Marusic, Rita Santos, and Susanne van den Hooff), the validation workshop participants (Caroline Gans Combe, Anja Gilis, Panagiotis Kavouras, Dorota Lepianka and Susanne van den Hooff) and anonymous reviewers.