Editing Scientific misconduct (section)

{{short description|Violation of codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in scientific research}}
{{for multi|dishonesty in educational settings|Academic dishonesty|unscientific claims presented as science|Pseudoscience}}
[[File:Piltdown man.jpg|thumb|A reconstruction of the skull purportedly belonging to the [[Piltdown Man]], a long-lasting case of scientific misconduct]]
'''Scientific misconduct''' is the violation of the standard codes of [[scholarly method|scholarly conduct]] and [[ethics|ethical behavior]] in the publication of [[professional]] [[science|scientific research]]. It is the violation of [[scientific integrity]]: violation of the [[scientific method]] and of [[research ethics]] in [[science]], including in the [[design of experiments|design]], [[experiment|conduct]], and [[scientific literature|reporting]] of research. 

A ''[[The Lancet|Lancet]]'' review on ''Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries'' provides the following sample definitions,<ref>{{Cite journal
| last1 = Nylenna | first1 = M.
| last2 = Andersen | first2 = D.
| last3 = Dahlquist | first3 = G.
| last4 = Sarvas | first4 = M.
| last5 = Aakvaag | first5 = A.
| title = Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. National Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in the Nordic Countries
| journal = Lancet
| volume = 354
| issue = 9172
| pages = 57–61
| year = 1999
| pmid = 10406378 | doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07133-5
| s2cid = 36326829
}}</ref> reproduced in The COPE report 1999:<ref>{{cite journal |title=Coping with fraud |journal=The COPE Report 1999 |pages=11–18 |url=http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/reports/1999/1999pdf3.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928151119/http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/reports/1999/1999pdf3.pdf |quote=It is 10 years, to the month, since Stephen Lock ... Reproduced with kind permission of the Editor, The Lancet. |archive-date=2007-09-28 |access-date=2006-09-02|ref=COPE1999PDF}}</ref>
* Danish definition: "Intention or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist"
* Swedish definition: "Intention[al] distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other ways."

The consequences of scientific misconduct can be damaging for perpetrators and journal audiences<ref>{{cite web|last=Xie |first=Yun |url=https://arstechnica.com/science/2008/08/what-are-the-consequences-for-scientific-misconduct/ |title=What are the consequences of scientific misconduct?  |website=Ars Technica |date=2008-08-12 |access-date=2013-03-01}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |url=http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/ethics/documents/redan08.pdf |doi=10.1126/science.1158052|title=SOCIOLOGY: Scientific Misconduct: Do the Punishments Fit the Crime?|year=2008|last1=Redman|first1=B. K.|last2=Merz|first2=J. F.|journal=Science|volume=321|issue=5890|page=775|pmid=18687942|s2cid=206512870}}</ref> and for any individual who exposes it.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Research Triangle Institute |title=Consequences of Whistleblowing for the Whistleblower in Misconduct in Science Cases |year=1995 |url=https://wiki.umn.edu/pub/IBS8099F10/WhistleBlowing/RTI_-_Consequences_of_Whistleblowing_report.pdf |access-date=2012-05-24 |archive-date=2017-08-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170824051717/https://it.umn.edu/news/umwiki-retired }}</ref>  In addition there are public health implications attached to the promotion of medical or other interventions based on false or fabricated research findings. Scientific misconduct can result in loss of [[Trust (social science)|public trust]] in the integrity of science.<ref name="b110">{{cite journal | last1=Morreim | first1=E H | last2=Winer | first2=Jeffrey C | title=Guest authorship as research misconduct: definitions and possible solutions | journal=BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine | volume=28 | issue=1 | date=2023 | issn=2515-446X | doi=10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111826 | pages=1–4| pmid=34933927 }}</ref>

Three percent of the 3,475 research institutions that report to the [[US Department of Health and Human Services]]' [[Office of Research Integrity]] indicate some form of scientific misconduct.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Singh|first1=Dr. Yatendra Kumar|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=R0U1EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA90|title=Introduction of Research Methods and Publication Ethics|last2=Kumar Dubey|first2=Bipin|publisher=Friends Publications (India)|year=2021|isbn=978-93-90649-38-9|location=New Delhi|pages=90}}</ref> However the ORI will only investigate allegations of impropriety where research was funded by federal grants. They routinely monitor such research publications for red flags and their investigation is subject to a statute of limitations. Other private organizations like the Committee of Medical Journal Editors (COJE) can only police their own members.<ref>[https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf Part III. Department of Health and Human Services] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211022224139/https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf |date=2021-10-22 }}</ref>