Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes ofscholarly conduct andethical behavior in the publication ofprofessionalscientific research. It is the violation ofscientific integrity: violation of thescientific method and ofresearch ethics inscience, including in thedesign,conduct, andreporting of research.
ALancet review onHandling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries provides the following sample definitions,[1] reproduced in The COPE report 1999:[2]
The consequences of scientific misconduct can be damaging for perpetrators and journal audiences[3][4] and for any individual who exposes it.[5] 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 ofpublic trust in the integrity of science.[6]
Three percent of the 3,475 research institutions that report to theUS Department of Health and Human Services'Office of Research Integrity (ORI) indicate some form of scientific misconduct.[7] 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.[8]
A 2025 study from Northwestern University found that "the publication of fraudulent science is outpacing the growth rate of legitimate scientific publications". The study also discovered broad networks of organized scientific fraudsters.[9][10]
The U.S.National Science Foundation defines three types of research misconduct:fabrication, falsification, andplagiarism.[11][12]
Other types of research misconduct by authors are also recognized:
Misconduct duringscholarly peer review process:
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, theJournal of Cell Biology gained publicity for instituting tests to detectphoto manipulation in papers that were being considered for publication.[32] This was in response to the increased usage of programs such asAdobe Photoshop by scientists, which facilitate photo manipulation. Since then more publishers, including theNature 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. OneNature paper published in 2009[33] has subsequently been reported to contain around 20 separate instances[34] 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:[35][36]
Image manipulations are typically done on visually repetitive images such as those ofblots and microscope images.[37]
According toDavid Goodstein ofCaltech, there are multiple motivators for scientists to commit misconduct, which are briefly summarised here.[38] In many fields of scientific research, productivity and success is measured by the number of publications and related metrics such as impact factor and reputation of the journal an article is published in.
All authors of a scientific publication are expected to have made reasonable attempts to check findings submitted to academic journals for publication.
Simultaneous submission of scientific findings to more than one journal or duplicate publication of findings is usually regarded as misconduct, under what is known as the Ingelfinger rule, named after the editor ofThe New England Journal of Medicine 1967–1977, Franz Ingelfinger.[40]
Guest authorship (where there is stated authorship in the absence of involvement, also known as gift authorship) and ghost authorship (where the real author is not listed as an author) are commonly regarded as forms of research misconduct. In some cases coauthors of faked research have been accused of inappropriate behavior or research misconduct for failing to verify reports authored by others or by a commercial sponsor. Examples include the case ofGerald Schatten who co-authored withHwang Woo-Suk, the case of Professor Geoffrey Chamberlain named as guest author of papers fabricated by Malcolm Pearce,[41] (Chamberlain was exonerated from collusion in Pearce's deception)[42] – and the coauthors withJan Hendrik Schön at Bell Laboratories. More recent cases include that of Charles Nemeroff,[43] then the editor-in-chief ofNeuropsychopharmacology, and a well-documented case involving the drugActonel.[44]
Authors are expected to keep all study data for later examination even after publication. The failure to keep data may be regarded as misconduct. Some scientific journals require that authors provide information to allow readers to determine whether the authors might have commercial or non-commercial conflicts of interest. Authors are also commonly required to provide information about ethical aspects of research, particularly where research involves human or animal participants or use of biological material. Provision of incorrect information to journals may be regarded as misconduct. Financial pressures on universities have encouraged this type of misconduct. The majority of recent cases of alleged misconduct involving undisclosed conflicts of interest or failure of the authors to have seen scientific data involve collaborative research between scientists and biotechnology companies.[43][45]
In general, defining whether an individual is guilty of misconduct requires a detailed investigation by the individual's employing academic institution. Such investigations require detailed and rigorous processes and can be extremely costly. Furthermore, the more senior the individual under suspicion, the more likely it is that conflicts of interest will compromise the investigation. In many countries (with the notable exception of the United States) acquisition of funds on the basis of fraudulent data is not a legal offence and there is consequently no regulator to oversee investigations into alleged research misconduct. Universities therefore have few incentives to investigate allegations in a robust manner, or act on the findings of such investigations if they vindicate the allegation.
Well publicised cases illustrate the potential role that senior academics in research institutions play in concealing scientific misconduct. A King's College (London) internal investigation showed research findings from one of their researchers to be 'at best unreliable, and in many cases spurious'[46] but the college took no action, such as retracting relevant published research or preventing further episodes from occurring.
In a more recent case[47] an internal investigation at the National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS), Pune determined that there was evidence of misconduct byGopal Kundu, but an external committee was then organised which dismissed the allegation, and the NCCS issued a memorandum exonerating the authors of all charges of misconduct. Undeterred by the NCCS exoneration, the relevant journal (Journal of Biological Chemistry) withdrew the paper based on its own analysis.
Some academics believe that scientific colleagues who suspect scientific misconduct should take informal action themselves, or report their concerns.[48] This question is of great importance since much research suggests that it is very difficult for people to act or come forward when they see unacceptable behavior, unless they have help from their organizations. A written guide and the existence of a confidentialorganizational ombudsman may help people who are uncertain about what to do, or afraid of bad consequences for their speaking up.[49]
Journals are responsible for safeguarding the research record and hence have a critical role in dealing with suspected misconduct. This is recognised by theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which has issued clear guidelines[50] on the form (e.g. retraction) that concerns over the research record should take.
Evidence emerged in 2012 that journals learning of cases where there is strong evidence of possible misconduct, with issues potentially affecting a large portion of the findings, frequently fail to issue an expression of concern or correspond with the host institution so that an investigation can be undertaken. In one case,[33]Nature allowed acorrigendum to be published despite clear evidence of image fraud. Subsequent retraction of the paper required the actions of an independent whistleblower.[51]
The cases ofJoachim Boldt andYoshitaka Fujii[52] inanaesthesiology focussed attention on the role that journals play in perpetuating scientific fraud as well as how they can deal with it. In the Boldt case, the editors-in-chief of 18 specialist journals (generally anesthesia and intensive care) made a joint statement regarding 88 published clinical trials conducted without Ethics Committee approval. In the Fujii case, involving nearly 200 papers, the journalAnesthesia & Analgesia, which published 24 of Fujii's papers, has accepted that its handling of the issue was inadequate. Following publication of a letter to the editor from Kranke and colleagues in April 2000,[53] along with a non-specific response from Dr. Fujii, there was no follow-up on the allegation of data manipulation and no request for an institutional review of Dr. Fujii's research.Anesthesia & Analgesia went on to publish 11 additional manuscripts by Dr. Fujii following the 2000 allegations of research fraud, with Editor Steven Shafer stating[54] in March 2012 that subsequent submissions to the journal by Dr. Fujii should not have been published without first vetting the allegations of fraud. In April 2012 Shafer led a group of editors to write a joint statement,[55] in the form of an ultimatum made available to the public, to a large number of academic institutions where Fujii had been employed, offering these institutions the chance to attest to the integrity of the bulk of the allegedly fraudulent papers.
The consequences of scientific fraud vary based on the severity of the fraud, the level of notice it receives, and how long it goes undetected. For cases of fabricated evidence, the consequences can be wide-ranging, with others working to confirm (or refute) the false finding, or with research agendas being distorted to address the fraudulent evidence. ThePiltdown Man fraud is a case in point: The significance of the bona-fide fossils that were being found was muted for decades because they disagreed with Piltdown Man and the preconceived notions that those faked fossils supported. In addition, the prominent paleontologistArthur Smith Woodward spent time at Piltdown each year until he died, trying to find more Piltdown Man remains. The misdirection of resources kept others from taking the real fossils more seriously and delayed the reaching of a correct understanding of human evolution. (TheTaung Child, which should have been the death knell for the view that the human brain evolved first, was instead treated very critically because of its disagreement with the Piltdown Man evidence.)
In the case of Prof.Don Poldermans, the misconduct occurred in reports of trials of treatment to prevent death and myocardial infarction in patients undergoing operations.[56] The trial reports were relied upon to issue guidelines that applied for many years across North America and Europe.[57]
In the case of Dr Alfred Steinschneider, two decades and tens of millions of research dollars were lost trying to find the elusive link between infant sleep apnea, which Steinschneider said he had observed and recorded in his laboratory, andsudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), of which he stated it was a precursor. The cover was blown in 1994, 22 years after Steinschneider's 1972Pediatrics paper claiming such an association,[58] whenWaneta Hoyt, the mother of the patients in the paper, was arrested, indicted and convicted on five counts of second-degree murder for the smothering deaths of her five children.[59] While that in itself was bad enough, the paper, presumably written as an attempt to save infants' lives, ironically was ultimately used as a defense by parents suspected in multiple deaths of their own children in cases ofMünchausen syndrome by proxy. The 1972Pediatrics paper was cited in 404 papers in the interim and is still listed on PubMed without comment.[60][original research?]
Title 10 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 50.5, Deliberate Misconduct of theU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations, addresses the prohibition of certain activities by individual involved in NRC-licensed activities. 10 CFR 50.5 is designed to ensure the safety and integrity ofnuclear operations.10 CFR Part 50.9, Completeness and Accuracy of Information, focuses on the requirements for providing information and data to the NRC. The intent of 10 CFR 50.5 is to deter and penalize intentional wrongdoing (i.e., violations). 10 CFR 50.9 is crucial in maintaining transparency and reliability in thenuclear industry, which effectively emphasizes honesty and integrity in maintaining the safety and security of nuclear operations. Providing false or misleading information or data to the NRC is therefore a violation of 10 CFR 50.9.
Violation of any of these rules can lead to severe penalties, includingtermination,fines andcriminal prosecution. It can also result in therevocation of licenses or certifications, thereby barring individuals or entities from participating in any NRC-licensed activities in the future.
The potentially severe consequences for individuals who are found to have engaged in misconduct also reflect on the institutions that host or employ them and also on the participants in any peer review process that has allowed the publication of questionable research. This means that a range of actors in any case may have a motivation to suppress any evidence or suggestion of misconduct. Persons who expose such cases, commonly calledwhistleblowers, find themselves open to retaliation by a number of different means.[41] These negative consequences for exposers of misconduct have driven the development of whistle blowers charters – designed to protect those who raise concerns.
The vast majority of cases of scientific misconduct may not be reported. The number ofarticle retractions in 2022 was nearly 5,500, butIvan Oransky and Adam Marcus, co-founders ofRetraction Watch, estimate that at least 100,000 retractions should occur every year, with only about one in five being due to "honest error".[61] One survey of researchers found that 29% of researchers reported misusing authorship at least once during their career, such as giving "gift authorship" to people who were not involved in the research.[19]
A 2025 study by Northwestern university after reviewing aggregated data on the lists of deindexed journals from literature aggregators such asWeb of Science,Scopus,Medline, data fromRetraction Watch andPubPeer found that while the total number of research publications double every 15 years, articles from suspectedresearch paper mills double every 1.5 years while the number of retracted articles double every 3.3 years and number of articles with PubPeer comments double every 3.6 years.[10]
Recent work byIlka Agricola and colleagues has for the first time systematically documented fraudulent practices in mathematical publishing and proposed concrete measures to address them. In "Fraudulent Publishing in the Mathematical Sciences," Agricola et al. analyze how predatory journals, paper mills, and citation cartels exploit bibliometric incentives, warning that unvetted "proofs" in low-quality outlets can mislead subsequent research. Published simultaneously onarXiv and in the October 2025 issue of theNotices of the American Mathematical Society,[62] the report highlights alarming patterns—such asClarivate's 2023 exclusion of mathematics from itsHighly Cited Researchers list due to metric gaming—and traces the emergence of systematic fraud in a field previously thought immune to such issues. A follow-up paper, "How to Fight Fraudulent Publishing in the Mathematical Sciences,"[63] endorsed by theInternational Mathematical Union andInternational Council for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, offers joint recommendations for researchers, institutions, and funders, including discouraging reliance on raw publication and citation counts, promoting expert peer review over bibliometrics, and using curated databases (e.g.,zbMATH Open) to vet journals. Commenting on these findings, Agricola emphasized that "fraudulent publishing undermines trust in science and scientific results and therefore fuels antiscience movements".[64]
In 1998Andrew Wakefield publisheda fraudulent research paper inThe Lancet claiming links between theMMR vaccine,autism, andinflammatory bowel disease. In 2010, he was found guilty of dishonesty in his research and banned from medicine by the UKGeneral Medical Council following an investigation byBrian Deer of the LondonSunday Times.[65]
The claims in Wakefield's paper were widely reported,[66] leading to a sharp drop in vaccination rates in the UK and Ireland andoutbreaks of mumps and measles. Promotion of the claimed link continues to fuel theanti-vaccination movement.
In 2011Diederik Stapel, a highly regarded Dutchsocial psychologist, was discovered to have fabricated data in dozens of studies on human behaviour.[67] He has been called "the biggest con man in academic science".[68]
In 2020,Sapan Desai and his coauthors published two papers in the prestigious medical journalsThe Lancet andThe New England Journal of Medicine, early in theCOVID-19 pandemic. The papers were based on a very large dataset published bySurgisphere, a company owned by Desai. The dataset was exposed as a fabrication, and the papers were soon retracted.[69][70]
In 2024,Eliezer Masliah, head of the Division of Neuroscience at theNational Institute on Aging, was suspected of having manipulated and inappropriately reused images in over 100 scientific papers spanning several decades, including those that were used by the FDA to greenlight testing for the experimental drugprasinezumab as a treatment for Parkinson's.[71]
In August 2025, a study published in theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences uncovered evidence of large-scale scientific publishing fraud involving networks of editors, authors, and paper mills. The investigation, reported byScience magazine, suggested that misconduct in academic publishing "has become an industry" due to the growing influence of paper mills and brokers.[72]
There are several tools available to aid in the detection ofplagiarism andmultiple publication within biomedical literature. One tool developed in 2006 by researchers in Dr.Harold Garner's laboratory at theUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas isDéjà vu,[73] 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 algorithmeTBLAST, also created in Dr. Garner's laboratory. The creation of Déjà vu[74] and the subsequent classification of several hundred articles contained therein have ignited much discussion in the scientific community concerning issues such asethical behavior, journal standards, and intellectual copyright. Studies within this database have been published in journals such asNature andScience, among others.[75][76]
Other tools which may be used to detect fraudulent data includeerror 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.
Kirby Lee andLisa 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."[77]
Since 2012, theDeclaration 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 thejournal impact factor.[78]
It is 10 years, to the month, since Stephen Lock ... Reproduced with kind permission of the Editor, The Lancet.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)Fraudulent publishing undermines trust in science and scientific results and therefore fuels antiscience movements. Mathematician Ilka Agricola discusses fraudulent publishing in math, metrics gaming, and the need for awareness and reform.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link)
Media related toScientific misconduct at Wikimedia CommonsTypes offraud | |
|---|---|
| Business-related | |
| Family-related | |
| Financial-related | |
| Food-related | |
| Government-related | |
| Healthcare | |
| Other types | |
