title: Understanding research misconduct: a comparative analysis of 120 cases of professional wrongdoing.
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.
authors.affiliation: a Bander Center for Medical Business Ethics, Saint Louis University , St. Louis , Missouri , USA.
authors.forename: James M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: DuBois
authors.forename: Emily E
authors.initials: EE
authors.lastname: Anderson
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Chibnall
authors.forename: Kelly
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Carroll
authors.forename: Tyler
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Gibb
authors.forename: Chiji
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Ogbuka
authors.forename: Timothy
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Rubbelke
mesh_terms: D011050:Policy Making; D012494:Sampling Studies; D015871:Scientific Misconduct / Q000145:classification / Q000523:psychology / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D014481:United States
references.citation: JAMA. 2003 Jul 9;290(2):252-5
references.pmid: 12851281
references.citation: Clin Transl Sci. 2013 Jun;6(3):209-13
references.pmid: 23751027
references.citation: JAMA. 2004 Jan 28;291(4):476-82
references.pmid: 14747505
references.citation: Nature. 2005 Jun 9;435(7043):737-8
references.pmid: 15944677
references.citation: Nature. 2008 Jun 19;453(7198):980-2
references.pmid: 18563131
references.citation: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006 Mar;1(1):51-66
references.pmid: 16810337
references.citation: Sci Eng Ethics. 2007 Dec;13(4):395-414
references.pmid: 18038194
references.citation: Ethics Behav. 2012 May 9;22(3):163-188
references.pmid: 23226933
references.citation: Int Rev Psychiatry. 2007 Oct;19(5):531-9
references.pmid: 17896233
references.citation: CMAJ. 2008 Jun 3;178(12):1529
references.pmid: 18519891
references.citation: Ethics Behav. 2005;15(4):339-49
references.pmid: 16578924
references.citation: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010 Sep;5(3):67-83
references.pmid: 20831422
references.citation: Clin Invest Med. 2004 Dec;27(6):316-23
references.pmid: 15675112
references.citation: Emotion. 2005 Mar;5(1):89-102
references.pmid: 15755222
references.citation: Yale J Biol Med. 1992 Mar-Apr;65(2):65-74
references.pmid: 1519378
references.citation: Am J Bioeth. 2003 Summer;3(3):39-46
references.pmid: 14594489
references.citation: Account Res. 2003 Jul-Sep;10(3):189-201
references.pmid: 14979320
references.citation: Account Res. 2005 Jul-Sep;12(3):225-40
references.pmid: 16634173
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:617-40
references.pmid: 12171999
references.citation: Science. 1999 May 21;284(5418):1246
references.pmid: 10383299
references.citation: Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1999;3(3):193-209
references.pmid: 15661671
references.citation: Ethics Behav. 2008 Oct 1;18(4):315-339
references.pmid: 19578559
references.citation: Am J Prev Med. 2012 Jan;42(1):89-98
references.pmid: 22176853
references.citation: PLoS One. 2009 May 29;4(5):e5738
references.pmid: 19478950
references.citation: AJOB Prim Res. 2013;4(3):39-48
references.pmid: 26523237