Editing Scientific misconduct (section)

==Forms==
The U.S. [[National Science Foundation]] defines three types of research misconduct: [[Fabrication (science)|fabrication]], falsification, and [[plagiarism]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nsf.gov/oig/session.pdf |title=New Research Misconduct Policies|publisher=NSF |access-date=2013-03-01  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120910021419/https://www.nsf.gov/oig/session.pdf |archive-date=2012-09-10 }}</ref><ref>45 [[Code of Federal Regulations|CFR]] Part 689 [http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/45cfr689_07.html] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081023015109/http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/45cfr689_07.html|date=2008-10-23}}</ref>
* ''Fabrication'' is making up results and recording or reporting them.  This is sometimes referred to as "drylabbing".<ref name=Shapiro1992>{{Cite journal | last = Shapiro | first =  M.F. | year = 1992 | title = Data audit by a regulatory agency: Its effect and implication for others | journal = Accountability in Research | volume = 2 | issue = 3 | pages = 219–229 | doi = 10.1080/08989629208573818 | pmid = 11653981}}</ref> A more minor form of fabrication is where references are included to give arguments the appearance of widespread acceptance, but are actually fake, or do not support the argument.<ref>Emmeche, slide 5</ref>
* ''Falsification'' is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
* ''Plagiarism'' is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. One form is the appropriation of the ideas and results of others, and publishing as to make it appear the author had performed all the work under which the data was obtained. A subset is '''citation plagiarism''' – willful or negligent failure to appropriately credit other or prior discoverers, so as to give an improper impression of priority. This is also known as, "citation amnesia", the "disregard syndrome" and "bibliographic negligence".<ref>{{cite journal|first=Eugene |last=Garfield |url=http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/demandcitationvigilance012102.html |title=Demand Citation Vigilance |journal=The Scientist |volume=16 |issue=2 |page=6  |date=January 21, 2002 |access-date=2009-07-30}}</ref> Arguably, this is the most common type of scientific misconduct. Sometimes it is difficult to guess whether authors intentionally ignored a highly relevant cite or lacked knowledge of the prior work.  Discovery credit can also be inadvertently reassigned from the original discoverer to a better-known researcher. This is a special case of the [[Matthew effect (sociology)|Matthew effect]].<ref>Emmeche, slide 3, who refers to the phenomenon as Dulbecco's law.</ref>
** Plagiarism-fabrication – the act of taking an unrelated figure from an unrelated publication and reproducing it exactly in a new publication, claiming that it represents new data.
** Self-plagiarism – or [[multiple publication]] of the same content with different titles or in different journals is sometimes also considered misconduct; [[scientific journal]]s explicitly ask authors not to do this. It is referred to as "salami" (i.e. many identical slices) in the jargon of medical journal editors. According to some editors, this includes publishing the same article in a different language.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wame.org/resources/publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals#orig|title=Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals|publisher=The World Association of Medical Editors|access-date=2009-07-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090731131343/http://www.wame.org/resources/publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals/#orig|archive-date=2009-07-31}}</ref>


Other types of research misconduct are also recognized:
* [[Ghostwriter|Ghostwriting]] describes when someone other than the named author(s) makes a major contribution to the research. Sometimes, this is done to mask contributions from authors with a [[conflict of interest]]. In other cases, a ghost authorship occurs where the ghost author sells the research paper to a colleague who wants the publication in order to boost their publishing metrics.<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>   
* ''Guest authorship''<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> is the phenomenon wherein authorship is given to someone who has not made any substantial contribution.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.icmje.org/#author|title=ICMJE – Home|website=www.icmje.org|access-date=3 April 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wame.org/resources/publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals#authorship|title=Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals|publisher=The World Association of Medical Editors|access-date=2009-07-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090731131343/http://www.wame.org/resources/publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals/#authorship|archive-date=2009-07-31}}</ref> This can be done by senior researchers who muscle their way onto the papers of inexperienced junior researchers<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Kwok | first1 = L. S. | title = The White Bull effect: Abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism | doi = 10.1136/jme.2004.010553 | journal = Journal of Medical Ethics | volume = 31 | issue = 9 | pages = 554–556 | year = 2005 | pmid =  16131560| pmc =1734216 }}</ref> as well as others that stack authorship in an effort to guarantee publication. This is much harder to prove due to a lack of consistency in defining "authorship" or "substantial contribution".<ref>{{Cite journal
| last1 = Bates | first1 = T.
| last2 = Anić | first2 = A.
| last3 = Marusić | first3 = M.
| last4 = Marusić | first4 = A.
| title = Authorship Criteria and Disclosure of Contributions: Comparison of 3 General Medical Journals with Different Author Contribution Forms
| doi = 10.1001/jama.292.1.86
| journal = JAMA
| volume = 292
| issue = 1
| pages = 86–88
| year = 2004
| pmid = 15238595
| doi-access = 
}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal
| doi = 10.1136/bmj.314.7086.1009
| last1 = Bhopal | first1 = R.
| last2 = Rankin | first2 = J.
| last3 = McColl | first3 = E.
| last4 = Thomas | first4 = L.
| last5 = Kaner | first5 = E.
| last6 = Stacy | first6 = R.
| last7 = Pearson | first7 = P.
| last8 = Vernon | first8 = B.
| last9 = Rodgers | first9 = H.
| title = The vexed question of authorship: Views of researchers in a British medical faculty
| journal = BMJ
| volume = 314
| issue = 7086
| pages = 1009–1012
| year = 1997
| pmid = 9112845
| pmc = 2126416
}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal
| last1 = Wager | first1 = E.
| title = Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship?
| journal = MedGenMed
| volume = 9
| issue = 3
| pages = 16
| year = 2007
| pmid = 18092023
| pmc = 2100079
}}</ref>
* Scientific misconduct can also occur during the [[Scholarly peer review|peer-review]] process by a reviewer or editor with a conflict of interest. [[Coercive citation|Reviewer-coerced]] citation can also inflate the perceived [[Impact factor|citation impact]] of a researcher's work and their reputation in the scientific community,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wren |first1=Jonathan D |last2=Valencia |first2=Alfonso |last3=Kelso |first3=Janet |title=Reviewer-coerced citation: case report, update on journal policy and suggestions for future prevention |journal=Bioinformatics |date=15 September 2019 |volume=35 |issue=18 |pages=3217–3218 |doi=10.1093/bioinformatics/btz071 |pmid=30698640 |pmc=6748764 }}</ref> similar to excessive self-citation. Reviewers are expected to be impartial and assess the quality of their work. They are expected to declare a conflict of interest to the editors if they are colleagues or competitors of the authors. A rarer case of scientific misconduct is editorial misconduct,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Chaplain |first1=Mark |last2=Kirschner |first2=Denise|author2-link=Denise Kirschner |last3=Iwasa |first3=Yoh |title=JTB Editorial Malpractice: A Case Report |journal=Journal of Theoretical Biology |date=March 2020 |volume=488 |pages=110171 |doi=10.1016/j.jtbi.2020.110171 |pmid=32007131 |bibcode=2020JThBi.48810171C |doi-access= }}</ref> 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.
* Publishing in a [[predatory journal]], knowingly or unknowingly, was discussed as a form of potential scientific misconduct.<ref name="pmid33836895">{{cite journal | vauthors = de La Blanchardière A, Barde F, Peiffer-Smadja N, Maisonneuve H | title = Revues prédatrices: une vraie menace pour la recherche médicale. 2 Evaluer leurs conséquences et engager une riposte | trans-title = Predatory journals: A real threat for medical research. 2 Assess their consequences and initiate a response | language = French | journal = Rev Med Interne | volume = 42 | issue = 6 | pages = 427–433 | date = June 2021 | pmid = 33836895 | doi = 10.1016/j.revmed.2021.03.327 | s2cid = 241560050 | url = }}</ref><ref name="pmid34393593">{{cite journal | vauthors = Yeo-Teh NS, Tang BL | title = Wilfully submitting to and publishing in predatory journals – a covert form of research misconduct? | journal = Biochem Med (Zagreb) | volume = 31 | issue = 3 | pages = 395–402 | date = October 2021 | pmid = 34393593 | pmc = 8340504 | doi = 10.11613/BM.2021.030201}}</ref>
* The peer-review process can have limitations when considering research outside the conventional scientific paradigm: social factors such as "[[groupthink]]" can interfere with open and fair deliberation of new research.<ref>Brown, C. (2005) Overcoming Barriers to Use of Promising Research Among Elite Middle East Policy Groups, Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, Select Press.</ref>
* ''Sneaked references'' is the act of subtly embedding references that are not present in a manuscript in the metadata of this accepted manuscript without the original authors being capable of noticing or correcting such modifications. <ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Besançon |first1=L. |last2=Cabanac |first2=G. |last3=Labbé |first3=C. |last4=Magazinov |first4=A. |year=2024 |title=Sneaked references: Fabricated reference metadata distort citation counts |journal=Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology |volume=75 |issue=12 |pages=1368–1379 |doi=10.1002/asi.24896|arxiv=2310.02192 }}</ref>
* Peer review manipulation. Many journals invite authors to recommend a list of suitable peer reviewers, along with their contact information. In some cases, authors recommend 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 reviewer can then write their own review.<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.] Biagioli, Mario. 2016. “Watch out for Cheats in Citation Game.” Nature 535 (7611): 201–201.
</ref>  

=== Photo manipulation ===<!-- this section is linked from [[peer review]] -->
Compared to other forms of scientific misconduct, image fraud (manipulation of images to distort their meaning) is of particular interest since it can frequently be detected by external parties. In 2006, the ''Journal of Cell Biology'' gained publicity for instituting tests to detect [[photo manipulation]] in papers that were being considered for publication.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24frau.html?_r=1 | work=[[New York Times]] | title=It May Look Authentic; Here's How to Tell It Isn't | author=Nicholas Wade | date=2006-01-24 | access-date=2010-04-01| author-link=Nicholas Wade }}</ref> 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<ref name="Kato" /> has subsequently been reported to contain around 20 separate instances<ref>{{cite web|author=11jigen |url=http://katolab-imagefraud.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/dna-demethylation-in-hormone-induced.html |title=Shigeaki Kato (the University of Tokyo): DNA demethylation in hormone-induced transcriptional derepression |website=Katolab-imagefraud.blogspot.co.uk |date=2012-01-15 |access-date=2013-08-04}}</ref> 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:<ref>{{Cite web |title=Restrictions of Image Manipulation |url=https://www.amed.go.jp/content/000048624.pdf |access-date=April 22, 2024 |website=AMED}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Editorial Policies |url=https://rupress.org/jcb/pages/editorial-policies#data-integrity |access-date=2024-04-22 |website=rupress.org}}</ref>
* splicing together different images to represent a single experiment
* changing [[brightness]] and [[contrast (vision)|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 tool]]s 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 [[Blot (biology)|blots]] and microscope images.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Ritchie|first=Stuart|date=2021-07-02|title=Why Are Gamers So Much Better Than Scientists at Catching Fraud?|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/07/gamers-are-better-scientists-catching-fraud/619324/|access-date=2021-07-19|website=The Atlantic|language=en}}</ref>

===Helicopter research===
{{excerpt|Helicopter research}}