Fraud in the Scientific Environment - Case Study Example

SCIENTIFIC FRAUD By Location Scientific Fraud Introduction Scientific fraud de s any contraventions to thedefined standards of carrying out scientific research, analysing data, and reporting ones findings. In many lands, scientific bodies have defined stringent regulations that govern all the steps and processes involved in research. A successful research venture begins with the formulation of a research question, the selection of an appropriate research paradigm, identification of reliable data collection strategies and then proceeds to a rigorous research process of obtaining the data and analysing it. After such rigour in the research process, a high level of integrity is expected when a scientist is publishing reports of findings from the research. This paper will discuss the different kinds of scientific fraud that have been identified as well as their implications. Over the years, many scientists have failed to comply with all the defined regulations opting for short cuts and hence publishing work that does not meet scientific standards. Committing scientific fraud has serious implications because it may involve intellectual exploitation of other people’s work which is against the copyright law. In many cases, scientific fraud may go unnoticed if the work of scientist undergoes publications without a rigorous critiquing program. However, as this essay will demonstrate being found guilty of scientific fraud may lead to serious penalties (Hargreaves 2001, p. 1350). Types of scientific fraud One of the serious cases of scientific fraud involves carrying out a research process that does not conform to the expected rigour. For example, if a scientist adopts a quantitative paradigm, he or she faces the compulsion of formulating both a null and alternative hypotheses. The data collected in such a research should help the researcher test the two hypotheses and adopt one of them depending on the statistical correlation identified. However, many researchers adopting the quantitative approach claim to have indulged in a rigorous data collection, analysis and hypothesis testing while in a real sense, they have not. Some of them face the temptation of manipulating data to soot the hypothesis that they think is right. The use of unreliable statistical tools also compromises the quality of data analysis yielding results that are erroneous. Scientific fraud may involve the production of a scientific paper aimed at presenting the different steps adopted in the research process. In a real sense, a scientific paper is a theoretical reconstruction of all the activities undertaken by the researcher. However, many researchers only report aspects of their research that proved successful (Khaled 2013, p. 21). They prefer to omit cases of failed experiments because of poor design, erroneous data analysis and wrongly perceived correlations. This is the reason why many of the research papers published seem to insinuate that the researcher had a carefully arranged proposal and outline and that implementation of the research paradigm adopted was of a very high standard. In actual sense, it is obvious that scientists make numerous errors while undertaking the research process. It is only fair therefore, that they highlight such errors in their reporting. This means that, when a researcher gives the implication that a rigorous research process was done, while it did not exist, can be termed as a scientific fraud. This type of fraud is committed by both the researchers and the editors of famous journals mandated to publish the scientific research. In a bid to protect the reputation of a journal, the editor may persuade a researcher towards misrepresentation of the errors occurring during the research process (Khaled 2014, 1745). In a different instance, researchers often present a long list of references with the aim of impressing bodies that approve the work or even the referees. In other cases, researchers will provide an extensive reference list as a crafty art of making their work more acceptable and reputable. The main purpose of having a list of references in a scientific paper is to give the proper credits to the previous authors whose work was used as a theoretical basis for developing a research paper. As it is, any modern research seeks to advance the existing knowledge; therefore, researchers endeavour to carry out a rigorous appraisal of the available literature before they define new concepts. It is unfortunate that, only a few researchers present a reference list of previous work that they considered. In most cases, researchers who adopt a shoddy research approach will seek to justify their findings by offering a lengthy list of references. On the other hand, some researchers prefer to omit references that they used because the status of such references does not enhance the quality of the research. For example, when designing a proposal, a researcher may seek help from a previous reference illustrating how to apply for a grant, but chose to omit such a source when giving credit in the reference list. Moreover, when researchers use sources categorized as “unscholarly” they prefer to leave them out when referencing. This is done because a researcher may have the perception that listing such unscholarly articles may prompt other scientists to view the scientific paper as less serious. Journal editors do not exhibit a preference for scientific papers bearing unscholarly references and this persuades researcher to omit that category of sources, even when they have been used (Slesser & Qureshi 2009, p. 2358). Plagiarism is also a common type of scientific fraud. This type of fraud violates the defined standards of according authors credit for their work. Although the direct copying of another person’s work is often viewed as the most serious type of plagiarism, the truth is that adopting someone’s ideology without offering them the required credit is also plagiarism. Some researchers only alter a small portion of previous work by another author and claim that they have produced an original scientific paper (Karcz & Papadakos 2011, p. 24). In other cases, some researchers copy the research design adopted by their competitors or enemies and manipulate them to appear original. There are serious implications of committing plagiarism, although they vary from country to country. Serious cases of plagiarism lead to an irreversible refusal of the scientific paper. Litigations may follow in cases where the owner of the copied work seeks help from and compensation from the law (Karcz & Papadakos 2011, p. 25). An additional type of scientific fraud is intellectual exploitation. This involves the reliance of other parties or individuals in the research process without a according them the proper recognition as core authors or contributors to the development of the research paper. A classic example of this type of fraud happens in the family setting whereby a wife may assist a husband in data collection and analysis, but the final paper does not recognize her as a co-author of the work. In other cases, individuals undertaking their masters and PHD researchers rely on the help of other students and laboratory assistants but may never recognize their efforts and contributions. Many critics of intellectual exploitation will agree that it is a necessary offence cannot independently work alone on a successful research venture. However, the acceptability of intellectual exploitation depends on the magnitude contribution of the other party. If the unrecognized party made a level of contribution which proved significant to the entire research process, then it is unethical not to recognize such contributions (Dealing with Scientific Fraud 2013, p. 16). Misinterpretation is also a common form of scientific fraud, especially concerning the quality, justification and progress of any research. Although it is important for a researcher to justify the significance of their work, exaggerating some significant give a false picture which may be considered fraudulent. Misrepresentation is often done when researchers are seeking funds from donors or in persuasion or a scientific body to recognize the research. Other researchers use the media to place unnecessary exaggeration or emphasis of their work. In curriculum Vitas a researcher may face the temptations of misrepresenting himself or herself. This may be done by altering the official records and achievements of a scholar to become more impressive (Howitt & Wilson 2014, p. 5). Misrepresentation of this nature may involve inflating minor achievements, describing administrative duties that one has never performed or even according oneself too much credit for collaborative research. Implications of Scientific Fraud Scientific fraud is a serious offence and may attract serious penalties and other consequences. Journal editors have the mandate to reject scientific papers that exhibit inexcusable levels of fraud. Since there are many types of scientific fraud, the implications vary. Some cases of fraud may be considered less serious and that does not mean they are ethically justified. Failing to present honest work that meets the expected intellectual integrity may often lead to the indefinite refusal of one’s work. In other cases, a litigation process may follow the discovery of scientific fraud and heavy fines and penalties may be imposed on the person proved fraudulent. In cases of intellectual exploitation, litigation may compel the researcher to recognize the efforts of other people in developing their work. Scientific fraud may also have negative effects on the reputation of a scholar. In every field, there are reliable scholars whose work have received universal recognition (Khajuria & Agha 2014, p. 63). Conclusion As described above, different types of scientific fraud exist. Scientists have devised ways of presenting work that passes for quality research while in a real sense, it is shoddy. The research process is lengthy and requires expertise in identifying the right sample, proper data collection, analysis and description of findings. The high demand of this process in a bid to make it rigorous challenges some of the researchers. Instead of being resilient, they opt for fraudulent practices in order to deceive the public and other scientific bodies to accept their work. Bibliography Dealing with Scientific Fraud 2013, Trends Magazine, 122, pp. 15-19, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 April 2014. Hargreaves, S 2001, UK moves to tackle scientific fraud, Lancet, 358, 9290, p. 1350, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 April 2014. Howitt, S, & Wilson, A 2014, Revisiting "Is the scientific paper a fraud?": The way textbooks and scientific research articles are being used to teach undergraduate students could convey a misleading image of scientific research, EMBO Reports, MEDLINE with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 April 2014. Karcz, M, & Papadakos, P 2011, The consequences of fraud and deceit in medical research, Canadian Journal Of Respiratory Therapy, 47, 1, pp. 18-27, CINAHL Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 April 2014. Khajuria, A, & Agha, R 2014, Fraud in scientific research - birth of the Concordat to uphold research integrity in the United Kingdom, Journal Of The Royal Society Of Medicine, 107, 2, pp. 61-65, CINAHL Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 April 2014. Khaled, K 2013, Scientific fraud in the digital age, Der Pharma Chemica, 5, 1, p. 28-38, Scopus®, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 April 2014. Khaled, KK 2014, Scientific fraud in corrosion science research: A review, Research On Chemical Intermediates, 40, 5, pp. 1735-1752, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 April 2014. Slesser, A, & Qureshi, Y 2009, The implications of fraud in medical and scientific research, World Journal Of Surgery, 33, 11, pp. 2355-2359, MEDLINE with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 April 2014. Read More