The Economics of Scientific Misconduct
This article presents a model of the research and publication process that analyzes why scientists commit fraud and how fraud can be detected and prevented. In the model, authors are asymmetrically informed about the success of their projects and can fraudulently manipulate their results. We show, first, that the types of scientific frauds that are observed are unlikely to be representative of the overall amount of malfeasance; also, star scientists are more likely to misbehave but less likely to be caught than average scientists. Second, a reduction in fraud verification costs may not lead to a reduction of misconduct episodes but rather to a change in the type of research that is performed. Third, a strong "publish or perish" pressure may reduce, and not increase, scientific misconduct because it motivates more scrutiny. Finally, a more active role of editors in checking for misconduct does not always provide additional deterrence. The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Yale University. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: email@example.com, Oxford University Press.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 27 (2011)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK|
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: https://academic.oup.com/jleo
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Dewald, William G & Thursby, Jerry G & Anderson, Richard G, 1986. "Replication in Empirical Economics: The Journal of Money, Credit and Banking Project," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 587-603, September.
- Alexander Dyck & Adair Morse & Luigi Zingales, 2010.
"Who Blows the Whistle on Corporate Fraud?,"
Journal of Finance,
American Finance Association, vol. 65(6), pages 2213-2253, December.
- Dyck, Alexander & Morse, Adair & Zingales, Luigi, 2007. "Who Blows the Whistle on Corporate Fraud?," CEPR Discussion Papers 6126, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Alexander Dyck & Adair Morse & Luigi Zingales, 2007. "Who Blows the Whistle on Corporate Fraud?," NBER Working Papers 12882, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- List, John A, et al, 2001. "Academic Economists Behaving Badly? A Survey on Three Areas of Unethical Behavior," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(1), pages 162-170, January.
- John List & Charles Bailey & Patricia Euzent & Thomas Martin, 2001. "Academic Economists Behaving Badly? A Survey on Three Areas of Unethical Behavior," Natural Field Experiments 00518, The Field Experiments Website.
- Hamermesh, Daniel S., 2007. "Replication in Economics," IZA Discussion Papers 2760, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Daniel S. Hamermesh, 2007. "Replication in Economics," NBER Working Papers 13026, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- repec:cup:apsrev:v:83:y:1989:i:01:p:77-91_08 is not listed on IDEAS
- Gary A. Hoover, 2004. "Whose Line Is It? Plagiarism in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(2), pages 487-493, June.
- Edward L. Glaeser, 2006. "Researcher Incentives and Empirical Methods," NBER Technical Working Papers 0329, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)