IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ess/wpaper/id2919.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Costs and Underappreciated Consequences of Research Misconduct: A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Arthur M Michalek
  • Alan D Hutson
  • Camille P Wicher
  • Donald L Trump

Abstract

The consequences of scientific misconduct are far-ranging and the costs associated with their investigation are substantial. It is possible to estimate the cost (direct and indirect) of investigating a single case of scientific misconduct. For a specific investigation for which costs were estimated for all phases of the review process, direct cost estimates approached US$525,000. For an individual country, the total costs to associated with the review of all cases of scientific misconduct, both reported and not reported to the Office of Research Integrity, are likely to be exponentially higher.

Suggested Citation

  • Arthur M Michalek & Alan D Hutson & Camille P Wicher & Donald L Trump, 2010. "The Costs and Underappreciated Consequences of Research Misconduct: A Case Study," Working Papers id:2919, eSocialSciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:ess:wpaper:id:2919
    Note: Institutional Papers
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.esocialsciences.org/Download/repecDownload.aspx?fname=Document12892010350.9133875.pdf&fcategory=Articles&AId=2919&fref=repec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniele Fanelli, 2009. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-11, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fong, Eric A. & Wilhite, Allen W., 2021. "The Impact of False Investigators on Grant Funding," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    2. David M Shaw & Thomas C Erren, 2015. "Ten Simple Rules for Protecting Research Integrity," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-6, October.
    3. Anna Abalkina & Alexander Libman, 2020. "The real costs of plagiarism: Russian governors, plagiarized PhD theses, and infrastructure in Russian regions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2793-2820, December.
    4. Bruce B. Svare, 2020. "A Cautionary Tale for Psychology and Higher Education in Asia: Following Western Practices of Incentivising Scholarship May Have Negative Outcomes," Psychology and Developing Societies, , vol. 32(1), pages 94-121, March.
    5. Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2022. "How research institutions can make the best of scandals – once they become unavoidable," Post-Print hal-03908837, HAL.
    6. A. M. Soehartono & L. G. Yu & K. A. Khor, 2022. "Essential signals in publication trends and collaboration patterns in global Research Integrity and Research Ethics (RIRE)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7487-7497, December.
    7. Mohan, Vijay, 2019. "On the use of blockchain-based mechanisms to tackle academic misconduct," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    8. Minghua Zhang & Michael L. Grieneisen, 2013. "The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 573-587, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Moustafa, Khaled, 2018. "Don't fall in common science pitfall!," FrenXiv ycjha, Center for Open Science.
    2. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2019. "On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 397-408.
    3. Jeremy Hall & Ben R. Martin, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Academic Misconduct: The Case of Business School Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    4. Kartal, Melis & Tremewan, James, 2018. "An offer you can refuse: The effect of transparency with endogenous conflict of interest," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 44-55.
    5. Robert J Warren II & Joshua R King & Charlene Tarsa & Brian Haas & Jeremy Henderson, 2017. "A systematic review of context bias in invasion biology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-12, August.
    6. Jasper Brinkerink, 2023. "When Shooting for the Stars Becomes Aiming for Asterisks: P-Hacking in Family Business Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 304-343, March.
    7. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    8. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2019. "Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-57.
    9. Bergemann, Dirk & Ottaviani, Marco, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," CEPR Discussion Papers 16459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 38-55, January.
    11. Brian Fabo & Martina Jancokova & Elisabeth Kempf & Lubos Pastor, 2020. "Fifty Shades of QE: Conflicts of Interest in Economic Research," Working and Discussion Papers WP 5/2020, Research Department, National Bank of Slovakia.
    12. Bruce B. Svare, 2020. "A Cautionary Tale for Psychology and Higher Education in Asia: Following Western Practices of Incentivising Scholarship May Have Negative Outcomes," Psychology and Developing Societies, , vol. 32(1), pages 94-121, March.
    13. Harrison, Mark, 2009. "Forging Success : Soviet Managers and False Accounting, 1943 to 1962," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 909, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    14. Stephan B Bruns & John P A Ioannidis, 2016. "p-Curve and p-Hacking in Observational Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    15. Harrison, Mark, 2011. "Forging success: Soviet managers and accounting fraud, 1943-1962," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 43-64, March.
    16. Necker, Sarah, 2014. "Scientific misbehavior in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1747-1759.
    17. Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2022. "How research institutions can make the best of scandals – once they become unavoidable," Post-Print hal-03908837, HAL.
    18. David Spiegelhalter, 2017. "Trust in numbers," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(4), pages 948-965, October.
    19. Horbach, S.P.J.M.(Serge) & Halffman, W.(Willem), 2019. "The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 492-502.
    20. Thibaut Arpinon & Romain Espinosa, 2023. "A practical guide to Registered Reports for economists," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 90-122, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    reserch; investigation; total costs; misconduct;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ess:wpaper:id:2919. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Padma Prakash (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.esocialsciences.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.