The Economics of Scientific Misconduct
Scientific fraud is a pervasive phenomenon with deleterious consequences, as it leads to false scientific knowledge being published, therefore a¤ecting major individual and public decisions. In this paper we build a game-theoretic model of the research and publication process that ana- lyzes 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 four main results. First, the types of scientific frauds that are observed are unlikely to be representative of the overall amount of malfeasance in science; also, star scientists are more likely to misbehave, but are less likely to be caught than average scientists. Second, a reduction in the costs of checking for frauds may not lead to a reduction of misconduct episodes, but rather to a change in the type of research that is performed. Third, an increase in competition between scientists may in fact reduce, and not increase, scientific misconduct. Finally, a more active role of editors in checking for misconduct does not always provide additional deterrence.
|Date of creation:||Mar 2008|
|Date of revision:||Apr 2008|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: via Sarfatti, 25 - 20136 Milano - Italy|
Web page: http://www.kites.unibocconi.it/
|Order Information:|| Postal: E G E A - via R. Sarfatti, 25 - 20136 Milano -Italy|
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.:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)