3.2 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientific misconduct | 6/6 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T04:27:42.017412+00:00 | kb-cron |
=== Exposure === There are several tools available to aid in the detection of plagiarism and multiple publication within biomedical literature. One tool developed in 2006 by researchers in Dr. Harold Garner's laboratory at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas is Déjà vu, an open-access database containing several thousand instances of duplicate publication. All of the entries in the database were discovered through the use of text data mining algorithm eTBLAST, also created in Dr. Garner's laboratory. The creation of Déjà vu and the subsequent classification of several hundred articles contained therein have ignited much discussion in the scientific community concerning issues such as ethical behavior, journal standards, and intellectual copyright. Studies within this database have been published in journals such as Nature and Science, among others. Other tools which may be used to detect fraudulent data include error analysis. Measurements generally have a small amount of error, and repeated measurements of the same item will generally result in slight differences in readings. These differences can be analyzed, and follow certain known mathematical and statistical properties. Should a set of data appear to be too faithful to the hypothesis, i.e., the amount of error that would normally be in such measurements does not appear, a conclusion can be drawn that the data may have been forged. Error analysis alone is typically not sufficient to prove that data have been falsified or fabricated, but it may provide the supporting evidence necessary to confirm suspicions of misconduct.
=== Data sharing === Kirby Lee and Lisa Bero suggest, "Although reviewing raw data can be difficult, time-consuming and expensive, having such a policy would hold authors more accountable for the accuracy of their data and potentially reduce scientific fraud or misconduct."
=== Changing research valuation === Since 2012, the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), from San Francisco, gathered many institutions, publishers, and individuals committing to improving the metrics used to assess research and to stop focusing on the journal impact factor.
== See also ==
== References ==
== Further reading == Claus Emmeche. "An old and a recent example of scientific fraud" (PowerPoint). Retrieved 2007-05-18. Sam Kean (2021). The Icepick Surgeon: Murder, Fraud, Sabotage, Piracy, and Other Dastardly Deeds Perpetrated in the Name of Science. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 978-0-316-49650-6. Patricia Keith-Spiegel, Joan Sieber, and Gerald P. Koocher (November, 2010). Responding to Research Wrongdoing: A User Friendly Guide. Jargin SV. Misconduct in Medical Research and Practice. Nova Science Publishers, 2020. Misconduct in Medical Research and Practice – Nova Science Publishers
== External links == Media related to Scientific misconduct at Wikimedia Commons Publication ethics checklist (PDF) (for routine use during manuscript submission to a scientific journal)