Editing Scientific misconduct (section)

==Motivation==
According to [[David Goodstein]] of [[Caltech]], there are motivators for scientists to commit misconduct, which are briefly summarised here.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goodstein |first1=David |date=January–February 2002 |title=Scientific misconduct |journal=Academe |volume=88 |issue=1 |pages=28–31 |doi=10.2307/40252116 |jstor=40252116 |url=http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2002/JF/Feat/good.htm|url-access=subscription }}</ref>
; Career pressure
:Science is still a very strongly career-driven discipline. Scientists depend on a good [[reputation]] 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 impression that misconduct may be more prevalent in some parts of the world than others. <ref>[https://doi.org/10.1080/18752160.2025.2482324 McLellan, Timothy. 2025. “Asian Tricks and Research Misconduct: From Orientalism and Occidentalism to Solidarity against Audit Cultures.” ''East Asian Science, Technology and Society'' doi:10.1080/18752160.2025.2482324.]</ref> 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]], [[artifact (observational)|artifacts]], and other extraneous [[data]]. That means that even if a scientist does falsify data, they can 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.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Fanelli | first1 = D. | editor1-last = Tregenza | editor1-first = Tom | title = How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 4 | issue = 5 | pages = e5738 | year = 2009 | pmid =  19478950| pmc =2685008 |bibcode = 2009PLoSO...4.5738F | doi-access = free }}</ref>
;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.