How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data.
How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
复制
发表时间：
2009-05-29
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Fanelli D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fanelli D
科学家捏造和伪造数据或犯下其他形式的科学不端行为的频率是一个有争议的问题。许多调查都直接询问科学家，他们是否犯下或知道一个同事犯下了研究不端行为，但他们的结果似乎很难比较和综合。这是对这些调查的第一次荟萃分析。为了使结果标准化，对每个问题计算了至少回忆起一次不当行为的答卷者人数，分析仅限于歪曲科学知识的行为：捏造、伪造、“炮制”数据等.关于剽窃和其他形式的专业不当行为的调查问题被排除在外。最终样本包括21项调查，包括在系统性综述中，18项在荟萃分析中。合并加权平均值为1.97%（N = 7，95%CI：0.86-4.45）的科学家承认至少有一次伪造，篡改或修改数据或结果-以任何标准衡量都是严重的不当行为-高达33.7%的科学家承认其他有问题的研究实践。在询问同事行为的调查中，承认率为14.12%（N = 12，95%CI：9.91-19.72），伪造，高达72%的其他可疑的研究实践。 元回归分析显示，自我报告调查，调查使用的话“伪造”或“捏造”，并邮寄调查产生较低的百分比不当行为。当这些因素得到控制，不当行为的报告更频繁的医学/药理学研究人员比其他人。考虑到这些调查提出了敏感的问题并有其他局限性，这似乎是对科学不端行为真实普遍性的保守估计。
The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys. To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, “cooking” of data, etc… Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis. A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.