DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Consequences of Data Fabrication and Falsification among Researchers

  • KANG, Eungoo (Saint Mary's University of Minnesota) ;
  • HWANG, Hee-Joong (Department of International Trade, Korea National Open University)
  • 투고 : 2020.08.27
  • 심사 : 2020.09.05
  • 발행 : 2020.09.30

초록

Purpose: The experience by a researcher highlighted steps is guided by a specific ethical codes of conduct. The purpose of the current study is to discuss the fabrication and falsification of data as the key ethical misconduct committed by many researchers focus on their causes and impact in the research field. Research design, data and methodology: To obtain suitable textual resource, the current study used content analysis to closely take a look at the fabrication and falsification based on prior research in the realm of publication ethics. As a result, the current authors could collect and understand adequate textual data from appropriate prior resources. Results: The Research misconduct is a common practice in different countries across the world. Based on the findings from this study, data fabrication or falsification have a grievous impact on all the stakeholders of a study. The unethical behavior affects the parties concerned both psychologically and financially. Conclusions: It is, therefore, recommended that researchers should be held accountable. This can be done through different means, including raising awareness of vulnerability to data fabrication and falsification. The government and research institute should also advocate for effective policies guiding research studies across the world.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bocskor, A., Hunyadi, M., & Vince, D. (2017). National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2015) The Integration of Immigrants into American Society. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 458 pages. INTERSECTIONS: EAST EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIETY AND POLITICS, 3(3), 157-161.
  2. Gerrets, R. (2016). Morals, morale, and motivations in data fabrication: Medical research fieldworkers' views and practices in two Sub-Saharan African contexts. Social Science & Medicine, 166(October), 150-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.019
  3. Martyn, C. (2003). Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. An International Journal of Medicine, 96(4), 243-244.
  4. Meskus, M., Marelli, L., & D'Agostino, G. (2018). Research misconduct in the age of open science: The case of STAP stem cells. Science as Culture, 27(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2017.1316975
  5. Pellegrini, P. A. (2018). Science as a matter of honour: How accused scientists deal with scientific fraud in Japan. Science and engineering ethics, 24(4), 1297-1313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9937-8
  6. Redman, B. K. (2013). Research Misconduct Policy in Biomedicine: Beyond the Bad-Apple Approach. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  7. Sengupta, S., & Honavar, S. G. (2017). Publication ethics. Indian Journal Ophthalmology, 65(6), 429-432. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_483_17
  8. Stacey, A. (2016). Militating against data fabrication and falsification: A protocol of. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 14(2), 72-82.