Name : Aqib Pranata

NIM : 1910117210024

Academic Writing A2

SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT (Nader Ale Ebrahim, PhD)

One of the problems that must be considered in research is research ethics which
includes scientific misconduct, namely; fabrication, counterfeiting, and plagiarism.
Researchers must have a responsibility to conduct ethical research.

THE TOOLS THE RESEARCHER CAN USE

1. Searching the literature  Web of Science, SCOPUS, EndNote, OATD

2. Writing a paper  dtSearch, Qiqqa, Academic Phrasebank

3. Targeting suitable journals  Journal Citation Report, Journal Metrics, Manuscript

matcher

4. Enhancing visibility and impact  ORCID, ZENODO

SCIENTIFIC OF MISCONDUCT

1. FALSIFICATION OF DATA
Ranging from fabrication to deceptive selective reporting of findings and omission of
conflicting data, or willful suppression and/or distortion of data. Fabrication is making
up data or results, and recording or reporting them.
2. PLAGIARISM
The appropriation of the language, ideas, or thoughts of another without crediting
their true source, and representation of them as one's own original work. This includes
unfounded or knowingly false accusations of misconduct, failure to report known or
suspected misconduct, withholding or destruction of information relevant to a claim
of misconduct and retaliation against persons involved in the allegation or
investigation.
3. IMPROPRIETIES OF AUTHORSHIP
 Improper assignment of credit, such as excluding others, misrepresentation of the
same material as original in more than one publication, inclusion of individuals as
authors who have not made a definite contribution to the work published; or
submission of multi-authored publications without the concurrence of all authors.
4. MISAPPROPRIATION OF THE IDEAS OF OTHERS
An important aspect of scholarly activity is the exchange of ideas among colleagues.
Scholars can acquire novel ideas from others during the process of reviewing grant
applications and manuscripts. However, improper use of such information can
constitute fraud. Wholesale appropriation of such material constitutes misconduct.
5. VIOLATION OF GENERALLY ACCEPTED RESEARCH PRACTICES
Serious deviation from accepted practices in proposing or carrying out research,
improper manipulation of experiments to obtain biased results, deceptive statistical or
analytical manipulations, or improper reporting of results.
6. MATERIAL FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING RESEARCH
Including but not limited to serious or substantial, repeated, willful violations of
applicable local regulations and law involving the use of funds, care of animals,
human subjects, investigational drugs, recombinant products, new devices, or
radioactive, biologic, or chemical materials.
7. INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR IN RELATION TO MISCONDUCT
This includes unfounded or knowingly false accusations of misconduct, failure to
report known or suspected misconduct, withholding or destruction of information
relevant to a claim of misconduct and retaliation against persons involved in the
allegation or investigation.

10 Major source of plagiarism

1. Replication: Submitting a paper to multiple publications in an attempt to get it

published more than once.
2. Duplication: Re-using work from one’s own previous studies and papers without
attribution
3. Secondary Source: Using a secondary source, but only citing the primary sources
contained within the secondary one
 4. Misleading Attribution: Removing an author’s name, despite significant
contributions; an inaccurate or insufficient list of authors who contributed to a
manuscript
5. Invalid Source: Referencing either an incorrect or nonexistent source
6. Paraphrasing: Taking the words of another and using them alongside original text
without attribution
7. Repetitive Research: Repeating data or text from a similar study with a similar
methodology in a new study without proper attribution
8. Unethical Collaboration: Accidentally or intentionally use each other’s written work
without proper attribution; when people who are working together violate a code of
conduct
9. Verbatim: copying of another’s words and works without providing proper
attribution, indentation or quotation marks
10. Complete: Taking a manuscript from another researcher and resubmitting it under
one’s own name

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

Gilbert and Denison [17] provide an overview of a number of definitions of research

misconduct as formulated by various international scientific institutions. For example, the
National Science Foundation (NSF, Arlington, VA, USA) offered a very general definition in
the 1990s. It considered misconduct to be a serious deviation from generally accepted
practices in a certain discipline. “Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification,
or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research
results”

According to Fanelli [21] “scientific knowledge is reliable not because scientists are
more clever, objective or honest than other people, but because their claims are exposed to
criticism and replication.” The literature on fraud and deception refers frequently to some
factors which are considered important for classifying certain behaviors as misconduct:

• Non-norm-compliant conduct.
• Intentional misconduct.
• Research with significant consequences.
• Academic research.
• other people’s unpatented ideas for a company’s own commercial purposes).

1. The Manifestations of Research Misconduct

The fabrication and falsification of data are behaviors which are most frequently
associated with research misconduct [17]. Fabrication means that data is quite simply
invented. Falsification means that existing data is “pruned” to take on the required
form or “massaged” to give the desired result [31].
As well as plagiarism and the invention or falsification of data as the typical
fraudulent and deceptive behaviors, the following forms of misconduct are also
mentioned quite frequently in the literature: redundant, multiple or broadly
overlapping publishing, the publication of research results in very small units—
known as “salami slicing”, dual or multiple submission of manuscripts (“shot-
gunning”), listing authors on a publication who have not made a substantial
contribution (“gift authorship”), not listing authors who have made a substantial
contribution (“ghost authorship”) and listing co-authors against their will [36].
Generally, a difference is made in these various forms of misconduct between minor
misdemeanors and serious violations. For example, the German Rectors’ Conference
in Germany classifies the following five manifestations as serious misdemeanors: (1)
Falsifying information, (2) infringement of intellectual property, (3) claiming another
person as a (co-)author without their permission, (4) sabotaging research work and (5)
destroying primary data.

2. The Extent of Research Misconduct

We can expect to find answers to the question of the extent of research misconduct
offered by those institutions who are asked for guidance in actual cases of fraud and
deceit [40]. In Germany, the German Research Foundation (DFG, Bonn) created the
post of ombudsman in 1999 in the wake of a spectacular case of fraud. The
ombudsman's function is to be an institution for advice and mediation, which means
that he/she does not consider himself/herself an investigating body for uncovering
research misconduct, but as an advisor to scientists and a mediator in any conflicts
that arise [41]. There are similar institutions in other countries which can also
investigate and impose sanctions, in addition to having an advisory role (such as the
Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, DCSD, Copenhagen).
INCIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT TODAY

A very low incidence of scientific fraud was claimed not only by uber establishment
figures Handler ¨ and Fredrickson but also by the usually acute founder of the modern
sociology of science, Robert Merton, who thought scientific fraud to be “extremely
infrequent” (Merton 1957, p. 651). . Studies began asking scientists at every level in a variety
of fields, and under the cover of anonymity, whether they themselves had engaged in
fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism or had direct evidence of such scientific misconduct
by others. Although the results were variable and involved different survey response rates and
methodologies, the overall picture is disturbing.

Retractions of Published Papers

Further insights into the incidence of scientific misconduct come from studies of
retractions of published scientific articles. A particularly strong examination of this
phenomenon is that of Fang et al. (2012). Unlike previous studies of retraction (e.g.,
Grieneisen & Zhang 2012, Nath et al. 2006, Steen 2011, Wagner & Williams 2011), Fang
and colleagues explored the reason for the retraction if none was mentioned in the retraction
notice, as was often the case. Among their sources for the reason for a retraction were reports
from ORI, blogs such as Retraction Watch (http://retractionwatch.com; see below), news
media, and other pubic records. Their review of 2,047 retractions of biomedical articles
indicated that only 23% were due to error, whereas 67% were attributed to some type of
misconduct such as fraud or suspected fraud (43%), duplicate publication (14%), and
plagiarism (10%) (see figure 1 in Fang et al. 2012). The most common nonmisconduct errors
that led to retractions were laboratory errors, analytical errors, and irreproducible results
(Casadevall et al. 2014).

Role of social media

Social media has entered the world of scientific ethics, and there are now blogs that
deal with possible scientific misconduct. Among the early blogs was Retraction Watch,
founded in August 2010 by science writers and editors Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus to
publicize and comment on retractions of scientific papers. They note that many retractions
and the reasons for them remain buried in obscurity and say they view tracking retractions as
a window into the scientific process.

WHO ARE THE MISCREANTS?

Scientists guilty of misconduct have been found in many fields and at different levels
in universities and research institutions; their social and educational backgrounds vary. There
appear to be no systematic empirical studies of the characteristics of perpetrators of scientific
misconduct and no good evidence for any common characteristics. However, there does seem
to be a modal scientist whose misdeeds in science are well publicized in The New York
Times, Science, and Nature and in books on the subject (e.g., Broad & Wade 1982,
Goodstein 2010, Judson 2004). This scientist is a bright and ambitious young man working in
an elite institution in a rapidly moving and highly competitive branch of modern biology or
medicine, where results have important theoretical, clinical, or financial implications.