Resource:45af2d0e-4238-4d3b-8431-9b7682eb9691

Resources

Cases

Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science

What is this about?

The authors analyze a convenience sample of fraud cases to see whether (social) psychology is more susceptible to fraud than other disciplines. They also evaluate whether the peer review process and replications work well in practice to detect fraud. This is a factual case.

Why is this important?

There is no evidence that psychology is more vulnerable to fraud than the biomedical sciences, and most frauds are detected through information from whistleblowers with inside information. On the basis of this analysis, the authors suggest a number of strategies that might reduce the risk of scientific fraud.

For whom is this important?

Researchers

Other information

When

• 2012

Where

• United States

Virtues & Values

• Reliability
• Honesty

Good Practices & Misconduct

• Fabrication
• Falsification
• Fraud
• Misconduct
• Peer Review

Research Area

• Psychology