Scientific Fraud, Publication Bias, and Honorary Authorship in Nuclear Medicine

Article Figures & Data

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1.
Distribution of scores assigned by 254 respondents to their overall confidence in integrity of published work in their scientific field.

TABLE 1.

Types of Reported Scientific Fraud

Type	Among survey respondents (n = 11)^*	Among departmental coworkers (n = 54)^†
Data fabrication	2	10
Data manipulation or falsification	4	19
Misleading (e.g., selective) reporting	4	26
Plagiarism	2	16
Duplicate or redundant publication	3	28
Other type of publication fraud	1^‡	3^¶

↵* Three respondents indicated to have committed multiple types of scientific fraud.
↵^† Twenty-eight respondents indicated to have witnessed or suspected multiple types of scientific fraud among departmental coworkers.
↵^‡ “Including authors on papers that did not contribute enough to justify this.”
↵^¶ “A doctoral candidate pulled together study plans of others and got a grant with his application. This was noticed and he had to withdraw his application,” “Ghost authorship,” and “Same as above.”