Misconduct prompts most retractions
Two-thirds of scientific papers pulled from journals are for fraud, suspected fraud and plagiarism
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/345465/title/Misconduct_prompts_most_retractions
I like this analogy:
The culture of science may be to blame for a recent increase in fraud cases: Journal publications are widely used to gauge a scientist’s potential and success [publish or perish]. “Misconduct is a phenomenon similar to doping in sport: It is essentially about gaining an unfair advantage over competitors,” says Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh. But a rise in retractions doesn’t mean that fraud is also increasing. “The fact that we went from zero retractions to 0.01 percent in a few decades is just an encouraging symptom of growing awareness of the problem.”
This demonstrates yet another form of bias, this one related to looking vs not looking. If you aren’t looking for something, it is remarkably unlikely to discover it. Sort of like buying a new car, prior to that expensive decision all cars on the road seemed different, but suddenly, once you have made your decision, it seems like every third car on the road is a carbon copy of yours! So, looking for fraud in publications actually reveals fraud (indeed, with so many people having so much riding on publications I would be quite skeptical if no fraud was ever detected!). Reducing it, though, just like doping in sports, could prove highly problematic as, in excellent parallel with sports, many of those who commit fraud in science feel they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. I am not aware, though, that the standard for fraud has intersected with the rather idiotic way that the antidoping agencies have made so many innocuous things into career ending violations, but who knows? Perhaps in a few decades that will start to happen. At least in science, there is a tradition of using science to evaluate things (as opposed to antidoping where there isn’t much in the way of evidence, let alone proof, that these so-called performance enhancing drugs are indeed performance enhancing).
As for is discretion the better part of valor, this is a nice quote:
Although Fang and Casadevall say they worry that their study could be misused to erode public trust in science, sweeping misconduct under the rug would be even more harmful.
Recent high-profile cases of fraud show that “when people make up stuff, it’s usually important,” Casadevall says. He cites the case of Andrew Wakefield, who published a study in 1998 in the Lancet linking the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine to autism and intestinal disorders. That study was repeatedly discredited and found to be fraudulent, but nevertheless, that paper sparked an ongoing backlash against vaccination.
