Scientific or Academic Misconduct / Fraud

Cheating Fabrication Falsification Plagiarism

Sudigdo Sastroasmoro Department of Child Health University of Indonesia sudigdo_s@yahoo.com
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Many people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character Albert Einstein
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

No, its Shania!

Lies, damn lies, statistics

Mark Twain

Lies, damn lies, science NN

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Selected references
Plagiarism. http:/www.ehhns.cmich.edu/ ~mspears/whatis.html Educating professionals. http://www.unisa.edu.au/ adminfo/policies/manual/misconduct.htm. Accessed June 2004 Jones R. Research misconduct. Fam Pract 19:123-4, 2002. Addison PA. Academic misconduct, definitions, legal issues, and management. Available from http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tif2001/ addison2.html. Accessed June 2004 Plagiarism, cheating and misconduct. Available from http://www.wuc.edu.au/call/index.htm. Accessed June 2004 The University of Chicago Reports of the Provost s Committee on Academic Fraud. www.uc-edu.sci Academic honesty. University of Massacchusetts Amherst - Undergraduate Rights and Responsibilities 2001-2002. Decker C, Burgess C. A taxonomy of plagiarism and academic fraud. Language Machine, 2003. Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Ethical Question: Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road?

Plato: For the greater good. Shakespeare: To cross or not to cross, that is the question. Einstein: Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed the chicken depends on your frame of reference. Darwin: It was the logical next step after coming down from the trees. Graduate student: Was that regular or extra-crispy?
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Research Code of Scientific Ethics

I dedicate myself to the pursuit, promotion, and advancement of scientific knowledge. I will conduct, manage, judge, and report scientific research honestly, thoroughly, without conflict of interest I will prevent abuse of all resources entrusted to me and endeavor to treat subjects humanely, following established guidelines where they are available. I will not willfully hinder the research of others nor engage in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or other professional Misconduct-Sept-07/SS misconduct.

Research Code of Scientific Ethics

I will welcome constructive criticism of my personal scientific research and offer the same to my colleagues in a manner that fosters mutual respect amid objective scientific debate.

I will recognize past and present contributors to my research and will neither accept nor assume unauthorized and/or unwarranted credit for another's accomplishments.
I will claim authorship for a research product only if I am willing to be held responsible for both the interpretation of the data and the conclusions as presented. Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Research Code of Scientific Ethics

I will claim authorship for a research product only if I have made a major intellectual contribution (as part of conception, design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation) and made significant contributions to its preparation (write, review, edit). I will not publish or use original ideas, research data, or unpublished findings of others without written approval. I will refrain from duplicative publication of the same research findings as original. I will show appropriate, diligence toward preserving and maintaining resources, such as data records Misconduct-Sept-07/SS entrusted to me.

Cheating
Defined by its general usage A major academic misconduct Technique:
Taking small notes Directly see others work Communicating with other students during exam Using false identification during exam Using electronic devices & other sophisticated methods

Should have severe penalty (graded, depending on the frequency and severity)
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

WARNING !!!
Severe penalty (up to discontinuation of the study program) will be applied to those who cheat in whatever technique(s) used!
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Scientific misconduct = FFP

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Definition of Scientific Misconduct

Scientific misconduct is fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
Federal Resistor October 14, 1999

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Scientific misconduct / Fraud

Misconduct in research is defined as "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other serious deviation from generally accepted practices in proposing, conducting, or reporting research. It does not include errors of judgment, error in recording, selection, or analysis of data, differences in opinions involving the interpretation of data, or misconduct unrelated to Nat Acad Press 1992 the research process.
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Honest error - examples

Improper use of statistical test: using independent t-test for paired data Poor understanding of research methods principles: Consider alternating assignment as a valid technique for randomization Wrong interpretation: r = 0.16, P= 0.002 Conclusion: There is a significant correlation between abdominal circumference and HDL cholesterol level. (The correct interpretation should be: There is NO correlation between abdominal circ. And this result is very unlikely caused by play of chance). Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Misconduct / Fraud (contd)

plagiarism, or other serious deviation

from generally accepted practices ..

stealing idea or data during the peer review process dishonesty in authorship illegal use of research budget it does not include. interpretation of data, or misconduct unrelated to the research process.
sexual harassment, crude behavior, etc.
Nat Acad Press 1992

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Misconduct in research
May occur from idea, proposal development, study execution, data analysis, publication May be intentional or non-intentional Non-intentional misconduct is treated and managed as severe as intentional misconduct, especially after being warned or done repeatedly Nat Acad Press 1992
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment: Extraordinary misconduct

In 1932 the American Government promised 400 men - all residents of Macon County, Alabama, all poor, all African American - free treatment for Bad Blood, a euphemism for syphilis which was epidemic in the county.
Treatment for syphilis was never given to the men and was in fact withheld. The men became unwitting subjects for a government sanctioned medical investigation The Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male 1998-2003.thetalkingdrum.com. lasted for 4 decades, until 1972 Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment

By the end of the experiment, 28 of the men had died directly of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had been born with congenital syphilis. How had these men been induced to endure a fatal disease in the name of science? There was no proposal and no informed consent The largest non-treatment experiment in the history of medicine
1998-2003.thetalkingdrum.com.

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment

On July 23, 1973, Fred Gray a prominent civil rights lawyer, brought a $1.8 billion class action civil suit Gray demanded $ 3 m for each living participant and the heirs of the deceased. The case never came to trial. In 1974, the government agreed to a $10 million out of court settlement. The living subjects each received $ 37,500, the heirs of the deceased, $15,000. PHS officers 1998-2003.thetalkingdrum.com. felt no guilty; on the contrary, they Misconduct-Sept-07/SS felt they were acting good conscience. No

Fabrication
In engineering, the term "fabrication" has a benign connotation, meaning to make something. In research ethics the term "fabrication" means making up data, experiments or, other significant information in proposing, conducting, or reporting research.
Nat Acad Press 1992

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

John Darsee
John Darsee (born 1948) was a medical researcher with an impressive publications (>100) but found to have fabricated data. He worked at Harvard, as research fellow at the Cardiac Res Lab, and considered as the most remarkable of the 130 fellows who had worked at the lab Some colleagues caught him labeling data from one short measurement as if it had been data from several experiments collected over weeks. Darsee had previously used false data between 1966 & 1970. Many papers had to be retracted incl. from Emory & Harvard Universities. Darsee had to give up his research career and Misconduct-Sept-07/SS became a critical care specialist.

HIV/AIDS research controversy

In 1984, Gallo and co. published a series of 4 papers in Science arguing that HIV, a retrovirus that had recently been identified in AIDS patients by Luc Montagnier and his collaborators at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, was the cause of AIDS. Today it is generally agreed that Montagnier first identified HIV, although Gallo's group is credited not only to the science which made the discovery possible, but also significantly to demonstrating that it causes AIDS. The two scientists continued to challenge each other's claims until 1987, when they agreed to share Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

William Summerlin
William Summerlin worked at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. He claimed that he could transplant tissue from unrelated animals by keeping the tissue in culture for four to six weeks. He used white mice with patches of black fur which he had colored with a black permanent marker. In 1974, Summerlin was discovered when he made a presentation to immunologist Robert Good; lab assistants noticed that the patches had been drawn on the mice and could be removed using alcohol. The forgery was attributed to a mental health problem. Author J. Hixson wrote a

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

The MMR ~ Autism controversy

Andrew Wakefield (born 1956), best known as the lead author of a controversial 1998 research study, published in The Lancet, which reported bowel symptoms in a selected sample of twelve children with autistic spectrum disorders and other disabilities, and alleged a possible connection with MMR vaccination. In a press conference Dr. Wakefield recommended separating the components of the injections by at least a year. The recommendation was responsible for a decrease in immunization rates in UK. The section of the paper setting out its conclusions, known in the Lancet as the "interpretation", was subsequently retracted by Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Scientist fabricated stem-cell data: panel (Reuters) South Korea's most famous scientist quit under a cloud on Friday and could face prosecution after said results in a landmark 2005 paper on producing`tailored embryonic stem cells were intentionally fabricated.
A panel from Seoul National University has been examining the work of Hwang Woo-suk, hitherto regarded in South Korea as a hero for bringing the country to the forefront of stem-cell and cloning studies -- and the world the first cloned dog. Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Falsification
In research ethics the term "falsification" means changing or misrepresenting data or experiments, or misrepresenting other significant matters, such as the credentials of an investigator in a research proposal. Unlike fabrication, distinguishing falsification of data from legitimate data selection takes judgment and an understanding of statistical methods.
Nat Acad Press 1992

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Falsification
Bernard Fisher, M.D., is Distinguished Service Professor of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, and Scientific Director of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP). He is one of three researchers who were exonerated from nationally publicized scientific misconduct. BF: Ive done research for 40 years, almost all from government grants. The charges of scientific misconduct were brought against me by an official of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), bringing the charge to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). I was accused of having used falsified data in my publicationsnot my falsified databut data which had been falsified by another investigator from St. Luc Hospital in Montreal, Canada. Misconduct-Sept-07/SS .. http://www.physiciansnews.com/spotlight/497wp.html

Sanctions of scientific misconduct

What is the scientific worlds attitude on scientific misconduct? Unfortunately, medicine and biology, especially, have been hit hard by fraud. One study found 94 cancer papers likely contained manipulated data. Two years later, many of the papers were still not retracted. This confirms the conclusion that even when scientific misconduct is proven, no reliable mechanism exists to remove bad information from the literature. Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Plagiarism

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Plagiarism defined
If you want to converse with me, define your term (NN) Every definition is dangerous (NN)
To be intelligible one must be inaccurate, to be accurate one must be unintelligible
Bertrand Russell
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Plagiarism defined
If you steal from one author, it is plagiarism If you steal from many, it is research
Wilson Mizner

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Plagiarism: What is it?

The unacknowledged use, as ones own, of work of another person, whether or not such work has been published (University of Malta Regulations, 1997) To take someone elses words or ideas and present them as your own without proper acknowledgment
(Marshall & Roland, 1998)

The use another persons idea or a part of their work and pretend that is your own
<http://dictionary.cambridge.org/>

The reproduction, in whole or essential part, of a literary, artistic or musical work by one who falsely claims to be its creator http://auth.grolier.com/>

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Plagiarism: What is it?

Plagiarisme adalah tindakan yang dapat diartikan sebagai pencurian ide atau hasil pemikiran dan tulisan orang lain yang digunakan dalam tulisan seolah-olah ide atau tulisan orang lain tersebut adalah ide atau hasil tulisannya sendiri untuk keuntungannya sendiri sehingga merugikan orang lain baik materiil maupun non-materiil, atau plagiarisme dapat berupa pencurian sebuah kata, frase, kalimat, atau alinea, atau bahkan pencurian suatu bab dari sebuah tulisan atau buku seseorang, tanpa menyebut sumber yang dicuri. (Draft SK Rektor UI)
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Is publication a prerequisite for plagiarism?

No!!!
Plagiarism is submitting or presenting someone elses idea or words without proper acknowledgment
(UBC Calendar)

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Classification of plagiarism
According to aspects plagiarized idea substance or content words, sentence, etc According to intentionality deliberate / intentional plagiarism reckless plagiarism According to the proportion of plagiarized materials: mild < 30% moderate 30-70% severe / complete >70% According to mode plagiarism: word-for-word plagiarism mosaic plagiarism Self / autoplagiarism Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Plagiarism of others idea

Research replication is encouraged in medicine (to lesser extent: in biological sciences) Large variations related to age, sex, race, study setting, individual responses make it important to verify previous study in different populations The report should explicitly indicates that similar work has been done in the past, and the present study was done to verify the results in other setting or population; Misconduct-Sept-07/SS otherwise the author confines to plagiarism

Plagiarism of words, sentence, etc

Quoting directly, paraphrasing or writing about someones ideas without giving a reference Using an authors exact words without indicating they are quoted and referenced Presenting your own version of other peoples ideas without acknowledgment
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Arjuna mencari cinta.

Plagiarism in film, painting, etc
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

These are plagiarisms

Transcribing or modifying text from any printed material (books, magazines, encyclopedias, newspapers) Using photographs, video or audio without permission Using another students work and claiming it as your own is plagiarism, also known as collusion
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

These are plagiarism

Literal translation from one language to another is NOT using your own words; thus it is plagiarism Using an essay that you wrote for another class without permission from the professor is known as self-plagiarism or autoplagiarism. It also means submitting or publishing the your own published materials without indicating that the work has been presented or published. Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

These are plagiarism

Taking an image, diagram, or artwork from another source without acknowledgement Collaborating inappropriately with other students when individual work is required Copying another students work or someone elses work and submitting it as your own
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Deliberate plagiarism
Buying, stealing, or using somebody elses brain-power to do your work for you are all acts of deliberate plagiarism You can expect the most severe of penalties

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Avoid accidental plagiarism

You probably dont want to get into trouble for accidental plagiarism I didnt mean to is not an excuse, and may be punished as severely as a deliberate act of plagiarism

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Severity of plagiarism
< 30% - mild 30-70% - moderate >70% severe/complete

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Why plagiarize?
Misunderstand how to use academic conventions appropriately Have poor writing skills Are too busy to study and have other distractions Are unmotivated Lack confidence or have a fear of failure Find the material complex and abstract and struggle to grasp the meaning.
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Common knowledge / Public domain (1)

If the information is found in several sources, it can be considered common knowledge and probably does not need to be cited (UI: > 5 sources). If the information is a specific authors research, you must create a citation within the paper and include the source in the References List
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Common knowledge/ Public domain (2)

Examples of common knowledge Aorta arises from the left ventricle and supplies blood throughout the tissues of the body In metabolic acidosis the pH, PCO2, and bicarbonate decrease, while in uncompensated metabolic alkalosis the reverse are true But if it is specific for other research, referencing is a must: Recent data indicate that the incidence of Misconduct-Sept-07/SS asthma in rural area has increased from 5 to

Common knowledge / Public domain (3)

Writing a textbook with usual arrangements (Title, Definition, Etiology, Pathogenesis, Clinical Manifestations, etc) is not plagiarism of idea Writing a research report with standard format is not plagiarism Re-drawing figure(s), if not original or specific is not plagiarism (e.g., diagram of clinical trial process, illustration of cardiac malformation, etc.) Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Evidence-based medicine is defined as The conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients1,2

Evidence-based medicine, which underlines the importance of explicitly and judiciously using current best evidence in patients management1,2 has gained its popularity in the last decade.
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

According to National Institute of Health (1996) Clinical Governance is a framework through which NHS organizations are accountable for continuously improving the quality of their services and safeguarding high standards of care, by creating an environment in which excellence in clinical care will flourish.
Clinical governance is a framework of quality improvement process of clinical care that should be implementation in all levels of medical services. Excellence in clinical care can be achieved by creating an environment that promotes high standard of care (NIH, 1996)
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

This passage was originally written by Kamran Abbasi and Iona Heath, and published in BMJ 2005;330:431-432.

Although correspondence with authors, ethics committees, university departments, and hospitals can be a painstaking and thankless battle with bureaucracyjust like seeking ethics committee approvalwe believe that editors have a duty to take on issues of unethical audit or research. Our motivation is not to seek punishment for the authors but to prevent future unethical clinical practice and to protect patients.

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Although correspondence with authors, ethics committees, university departments, and hospitals can be a painstaking and thankless battle with bureaucracyjust like seeking ethics committee approvalwe believe that editors have a duty to take on issues of unethical audit or research. Our motivation is not to seek punishment for the authors but to prevent future unethical clinical practice and to protect patients.
(Plagiarism, because of no reference)
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Although correspondence with authors, ethics committees, university departments, and hospitals can be a painstaking and thankless battle with bureaucracyjust like seeking ethics committee approval we believe that editors have a duty to take on issues of unethical audit or research. Our motivation is not to seek punishment for the authors but to prevent future unethical clinical practice and to protect patients (Abbasi and Heath, 2005).
[Plagiarism despite referencing because the author(s) used others exact words]

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Correspondence with authors and other relevant sources (including ethics committees, university departments, and hospitals) should be performed to make sure that unethical audit on research is incorrect. Editors should try their best despite many obstacles that may prevent them from getting the information easily. The primary aim is to prevent future unethical clinical practice and to protect patients (Abbasi and Heath, 2005). [No plagiarism because of paraphrase and Misconduct-Sept-07/SS reference]

Abbasi and Heath (2005) believe that Although correspondence with authors, ethics committees, university departments, and hospitals can be a painstaking and thankless battle with bureaucracyjust like seeking ethics committee approvalwe believe that editors have a duty to take on issues of unethical audit or research. Our motivation is not to seek punishment for the authors but to prevent future unethical clinical practice and to protect patients.
[No plagiarism because the use of quotation mark and reference]
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

What about Paraphrasing?

Paraphrasing is using someones ideas but putting it in your own words. This is a very common and standard part of writing research reports. There is a right way and a wrong way to paraphrase. You still have to acknowledge the source.

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Tips on Paraphrasing Correctly

Be sure that you are not just rearranging or replacing a few words. Read over what you want to paraphrase carefully; cover up the text with your hand, or close the text so you can't see any of it (and so aren't tempted to use the text as a "guide"). Write out the idea in your own words without peeking.
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

 Check your paraphrase against the original text to be sure you have not accidentally used the same phrases or words, and that the information is accurate

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Remember
Create Bibliography as you goall sources! Write down the page numbers Quote someones exact words & (cite it) Cite uncommon knowledgeideas, opinions & interpretations, little known facts Paraphrasing is more than re-wording. Put it in your own words and cite it. Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

If You Borrow:
words, ideas, theories, opinions even paraphrased

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Cite It!

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Example of plagiarism from internet source: Loose citation of web sources

Persons who are right-brain dominant tend to process the emotional and artistic aspects of an advertisement better than persons who are left-brain dominant (yahoo.com). Plagiarism: Reference is far too ambiguous. Use the FULL, COMPLETE web page address and date accessed.
(http://www.csun.edu/brucelammers/mkt348/splitbrain.doc, accessed June 12, 2004). Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

What about slides for presentation? (Personal view)

If not accompanied by full-text article, all specific information should be referenced on the slide If the materials have been presented in other meeting(s), information to the audience (to avoid autoplagiarism) is recommended. This also applied for updated case series Using (stealing) slides from other author without proper credit is a kind of plagiarism No references are needed for common Misconduct-Sept-07/SS knowledge

Authorship
An "author" is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2006

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Authorship
Authorship credit should be based on 1. substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2. drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3. final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3
International Committee of Medical Journal
Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Authorship
The order of authorship on the byline should be a joint decision of the co-authors. Authors should be prepared to explain the order in which authors are listed. (Scientific integrity!!!) All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgments section Ghost author is unacceptable
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2006 Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

What is copyright?
Copyright is legal ownership of a work, whether printed or online. A work's author "has the exclusive right to control how a work, including any derivative works, is reproduced, published, and performed. A work is protected under copyright for the life of the author plus 70 years. Anything that you post on the Web is immediately covered by copyright law, even if you don't append a copyright statement to it. If you want to allow certain uses for your work (such as educational ones), you can add a statement to that effect on your pages. Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Role of Research Ethics Committee

Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board (IRB) has the obligation to review that all researches involving human participants should be done in accordance with Declaration of Helsinki Protects participants, public, researchers, institutions, and science Include methodological aspects: a scientifically unsound research is automatically unethical (WHO)

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS

Thank you

If you are not confused, you are not wellinformed

Misconduct-Sept-07/SS