---
title: "Scientific misconduct"
chunk: 2/6
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:42.017412+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

A reviewer or editor with a conflict of interest can coerce the author to cite the reviewer's publications prior to recommending publication. This can inflate the perceived citation impact of a researcher's work and their reputation in the scientific community, similar to excessive self-citation.
Suggesting fake peer reviewers can happen when journals invite authors to recommend a list of suitable peer reviewers, along with their contact information. In some cases, authors have recommended a "reviewer" for whom they provide a fake email address that in fact belongs to the author. If the editor follows the author's reviewer recommendation, the author can then write their own review.
A rarer case of scientific misconduct is editorial misconduct, where an editor does not declare conflicts of interest, creates pseudonyms to review papers, gives strongly worded editorial decisions to support reviews suggesting to add excessive citations to their own unrelated works or to add themselves as a co-author or their name to the title of the manuscript.

=== Photo manipulation ===
Manipulation of images constitutes a form of research misconduct that some journals actively screen for because it can be detected through image analysis tools. In 2006, the Journal of Cell Biology gained publicity for instituting tests to detect photo manipulation in papers that were being considered for publication. This was in response to the increased usage of programs such as Adobe Photoshop by scientists, which facilitate photo manipulation. Since then more publishers, including the Nature Publishing Group, have instituted similar tests and require authors to minimize and specify the extent of photo manipulation when a manuscript is submitted for publication. However, there is little evidence to indicate that such tests are applied rigorously. One Nature paper published in 2009 has subsequently been reported to contain around 20 separate instances of image fraud.
Although the type of manipulation that is allowed can depend greatly on the type of experiment that is presented and also differ from one journal to another, in general the following manipulations are not allowed:

splicing together different images to represent a single experiment
changing brightness and contrast of only a part of the image
any change that conceals information, even when it is considered to be non-specific, which includes:
changing brightness and contrast to leave only the most intense signal
using clone tools to hide information
showing only a very small part of the photograph so that additional information is not visible
Image manipulations are typically done on visually repetitive images such as those of blots and microscope images.

== Motivations ==
According to David Goodstein of Caltech, there are multiple motivators for scientists to commit misconduct, which are briefly summarised here. Research on the motivations for scientific misconduct often cites publication pressure and career incentives as contributing factors.

Career pressure – Science is a very strongly career-driven discipline. Scientists depend on their record of achievement to receive ongoing support and funding, and a good reputation relies largely on the publication of high-profile scientific papers. Hence, there is a strong imperative to "publish or perish". This pressure is stronger in some research settings than others, contributing to the increased prevalence of misconduct in some parts of the world than others. This may motivate desperate (or fame-hungry) scientists to fabricate results.
Ease of fabrication – In many scientific fields, results are often difficult to reproduce accurately, being obscured by noise, artifacts, and other extraneous data. That means that even if a scientist does falsify data, they may expect to get away with it – or at least claim innocence if their results conflict with others in the same field. There are few strongly backed systems to investigate possible violations, attempt to press charges, or punish deliberate misconduct. It is relatively easy to cheat although difficult to know exactly how many scientists fabricate data.
Monetary gain – In many scientific fields, the most lucrative options for professionals are often selling opinions. Corporations can pay experts to support products directly or indirectly via conferences. Psychologists can make money by repeatedly acting as an expert witness in custody proceedings for the same law firms.
Political bias among scientists can motivate reduced scientific integrity and academic bias.

== Roles ==