Seminar by Dr. Maikel Pellens, ZEW
Event details
| Date | 30.11.2016 |
| Hour | 12:00 › 13:30 |
| Speaker | Dr. Maikel Pellens, ZEW |
| Location | |
| Category | Conferences - Seminars |
"Guilt by Association: How Scientific Misconduct Harms Prior Collaborators"
Abstract:
Recent highly publicized cases of scientific misconduct have raised concerns about the implications of scientific misconduct and their scope. Previous and anecdotal evidence suggests that the consequences of scientific misconduct reach far beyond the fraudulent scientist and her career, affecting coauthors and institutions. Here we show that also ‘prior collaborators’ are harmed in the fallout of a misconduct case: those who collaborated in the past with a scientist found guilty of scientific misconduct, but who are not involved in the misconduct case in any way. Compared to a random control group, prior collaborators of 36 scientists who were found guilty of scientific misconduct at the Office of Research Integrity are cited 8 to 9% less after the misconduct case is revealed. This means that scientific misconduct generates large indirect costs in the form of mistrust of research findings, which lead to unwarranted discarding of valid research results. The broad fallout of misconduct implies that potential whistleblowers might be disinclined to make their concerns public.
Abstract:
Recent highly publicized cases of scientific misconduct have raised concerns about the implications of scientific misconduct and their scope. Previous and anecdotal evidence suggests that the consequences of scientific misconduct reach far beyond the fraudulent scientist and her career, affecting coauthors and institutions. Here we show that also ‘prior collaborators’ are harmed in the fallout of a misconduct case: those who collaborated in the past with a scientist found guilty of scientific misconduct, but who are not involved in the misconduct case in any way. Compared to a random control group, prior collaborators of 36 scientists who were found guilty of scientific misconduct at the Office of Research Integrity are cited 8 to 9% less after the misconduct case is revealed. This means that scientific misconduct generates large indirect costs in the form of mistrust of research findings, which lead to unwarranted discarding of valid research results. The broad fallout of misconduct implies that potential whistleblowers might be disinclined to make their concerns public.
Practical information
- General public
- Free