Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from Criminology
This article draws on research traditions and insights from Criminology to elaborate on the problems associated with current practices of measuring scientific misconduct. Analyses of the number of retracted articles are shown to suffer from the fact that the distinct processes of misconduct, detecti...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2014-07-01
|
| Series: | Publications |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/2/3/61 |
| _version_ | 1798003633779900416 |
|---|---|
| author | Felicitas Hesselmann Verena Wienefoet Martin Reinhart |
| author_facet | Felicitas Hesselmann Verena Wienefoet Martin Reinhart |
| author_sort | Felicitas Hesselmann |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This article draws on research traditions and insights from Criminology to elaborate on the problems associated with current practices of measuring scientific misconduct. Analyses of the number of retracted articles are shown to suffer from the fact that the distinct processes of misconduct, detection, punishment, and publication of a retraction notice, all contribute to the number of retractions and, hence, will result in biased estimates. Self-report measures, as well as analyses of retractions, are additionally affected by the absence of a consistent definition of misconduct. This problem of definition is addressed further as stemming from a lack of generally valid definitions both on the level of measuring misconduct and on the level of scientific practice itself. Because science is an innovative and ever-changing endeavor, the meaning of misbehavior is permanently shifting and frequently readdressed and renegotiated within the scientific community. Quantitative approaches (i.e., statistics) alone, thus, are hardly able to accurately portray this dynamic phenomenon. It is argued that more research on the different processes and definitions associated with misconduct and its detection and sanctions is needed. The existing quantitative approaches need to be supported by qualitative research better suited to address and uncover processes of negotiation and definition. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T12:12:09Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c306e81d4a2548fe8f1d04ae2e1158e1 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2304-6775 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T12:12:09Z |
| publishDate | 2014-07-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Publications |
| spelling | doaj.art-c306e81d4a2548fe8f1d04ae2e1158e12022-12-22T04:24:36ZengMDPI AGPublications2304-67752014-07-0123617010.3390/publications2030061publications2030061Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from CriminologyFelicitas Hesselmann0Verena Wienefoet1Martin Reinhart2Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance, Schützenstraße 6a, 10117 Berlin, GermanyInstitute for Research Information and Quality Assurance, Schützenstraße 6a, 10117 Berlin, GermanyInstitute for Research Information and Quality Assurance, Schützenstraße 6a, 10117 Berlin, GermanyThis article draws on research traditions and insights from Criminology to elaborate on the problems associated with current practices of measuring scientific misconduct. Analyses of the number of retracted articles are shown to suffer from the fact that the distinct processes of misconduct, detection, punishment, and publication of a retraction notice, all contribute to the number of retractions and, hence, will result in biased estimates. Self-report measures, as well as analyses of retractions, are additionally affected by the absence of a consistent definition of misconduct. This problem of definition is addressed further as stemming from a lack of generally valid definitions both on the level of measuring misconduct and on the level of scientific practice itself. Because science is an innovative and ever-changing endeavor, the meaning of misbehavior is permanently shifting and frequently readdressed and renegotiated within the scientific community. Quantitative approaches (i.e., statistics) alone, thus, are hardly able to accurately portray this dynamic phenomenon. It is argued that more research on the different processes and definitions associated with misconduct and its detection and sanctions is needed. The existing quantitative approaches need to be supported by qualitative research better suited to address and uncover processes of negotiation and definition.http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/2/3/61scientific misconductscientific retractionsscientific fraudcriminologylabeling theorymethodology |
| spellingShingle | Felicitas Hesselmann Verena Wienefoet Martin Reinhart Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from Criminology Publications scientific misconduct scientific retractions scientific fraud criminology labeling theory methodology |
| title | Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from Criminology |
| title_full | Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from Criminology |
| title_fullStr | Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from Criminology |
| title_full_unstemmed | Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from Criminology |
| title_short | Measuring Scientific Misconduct—Lessons from Criminology |
| title_sort | measuring scientific misconduct lessons from criminology |
| topic | scientific misconduct scientific retractions scientific fraud criminology labeling theory methodology |
| url | http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/2/3/61 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT felicitashesselmann measuringscientificmisconductlessonsfromcriminology AT verenawienefoet measuringscientificmisconductlessonsfromcriminology AT martinreinhart measuringscientificmisconductlessonsfromcriminology |