One in eight UK scientists has witnessed research fraud

Well what a surprise - when scientists feel pressured to publish zillions of papers each year just to satisfy their paymasters, stress, bullying, whistle-blowing and outright fraud will be the ugly, inevitable results. In fact Einstein's research would never have been given a grant under this system (no apparent economic benefit), or if it did, he would have been sacked later on for doing too much thinking and not enough publishing.

Self-plagiarism is the name of the game.

Not withstanding that fraud is an important issue, so is sloppy reporting.

The survey ‘was emailed to 9036 academics and clinicians who had submitted articles to the BMJ or acted as peer reviewers for the journal (response rate 31%),’

In other words, the response rate is low enough to have been affected by potential response biases and far from representing #UK –based scientists#

This is a particular community associated with a particular journal and says nothing about fraud in other areas of science.

I agree that this is a sloppy headline and the sub-editor should be taken to task. It is also sloppy reporting as the 6% figure is awareness of insufficiently investigated cases not self- incrimination. Read the article!

BMJ operates in an area where many research supervisors may have clinical responsibilities and not be able to supervise students and staff as closely as bench-based scientists.

I know of a Dept where 100% of the scientists have witnessed "research fraud" - but this was by one person once. A minor enhancement of an image in a seminar by an inexperienced student fits the definition, but it does not make the Dept 100% fraudulent!

Come on BMJ and THE - apply the same standards to your work as we endeavour to do to ours. Fraud is an important issue and this puts it in danger of being trivialised.

This is a matter of utter disappointment. If our academicians and scientists are involved in research corruption, what lesson are we giving to the students about plagiarism and data theft.

All these rhetoric and shallow advises to our students about plagiarism, collusion are wasted if we ourselves do not practice what we preach.
Fabricating research work especially medical research is a more serious academic crime than plagiarism and collusion.

I can understand that most of the research work is funded by corporates who keep commercial interests before academic interests but would there be a stop to it.

OK so the 'Hockey stick" data was manipulated... so what?

"One in eight UK scientists has witnessed research fraud"

Are the other seven blind and deaf? or just hypocritical?

@pippo

The probably didn't ask them and manipulated the data.

"One in eight UK scientists has witnessed research fraud"

Well no-not quite. This poll was responded to by around one third of UK research scientists contacted by the BMJ, (2800 responses). 13% of these researchers claimed to have personally witnessed colleagues falsifying results or manipulating data in order to provide a desired result. Another 6% stated the 'possibility' of uninvestigated research misconduct having taken place in their own institutions.

In research jargon, this was a 'straw poll' and actually proves nothing at all, since these scientists,( some of whom might have personal grudges against colleagues), were able to make their allegations anonymously; the 6% who claimed a 'possibilty' can be completely discounted. Of course, these scientists, who had all written or reviewed articles for the BMJ, were apparently NOT asked if they themselves had committed similar research misdemeanours. Now THAT would have been interesting!!