Quantos cientistas forjam e falsificam as pesquisas?

Já que agora é moda entre cientistas fraudar e/ou deletar dados sobre suas pesquisas (geralmente ideologicamente motivados), eis aqui uma pesquisa onde os dados não foram forjados e nem falsificados.

Tomsk pegou a turma do CRU com as mãos nas cumbucas.

Será que na Grande Akademia Tupiniquim é diferente? Não, é claro que não. A USP que o diga. Se o cientista virou mito, aqui neste blog a gente dismitifica, oops, mata a cobra e mostra o pau!

+++++

Daniele Fanelli*
INNOGEN and ISSTI-Institute for the Study of Science, Technology & Innovation, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Abstract Top
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.

Citation: Fanelli D (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

Editor: Tom Tregenza, University of Exeter, United Kingdom

Received: January 6, 2009; Accepted: April 19, 2009; Published: May 29, 2009

Copyright: © 2009 Fanelli. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The author is supported by a Marie Curie Intra European Fellowship (Grant Agreement Number PIEF-GA-2008-221441). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: dfanelli@staffmail.ed.ac.uk

+++++

FREE PDF GRÁTIS [OPEN ACCESS]

+++++

Tirando o chapéu para chunkdz