How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
🧐 Skeptical/Critical ↗Plain English Summary
Ever wonder how many scientists play fast and loose with their data? This landmark study -- the first of its kind -- pulled together 21 surveys asking researchers about misconduct. The headline number: about 2% of scientists admitted they had fabricated, falsified, or fudged data at least once. That might sound small, but here's where it gets jaw-dropping -- up to a third admitted to "questionable research practices" (things like cherry-picking data or tweaking methods after seeing results). And when asked about their colleagues? A stunning 72% said they'd witnessed these dodgy practices. Medical researchers were the worst offenders. The author emphasizes these are almost certainly underestimates, since people tend to downplay their own bad behavior. This provides crucial context for evaluating fraud accusations in any scientific field.
Research Notes
First meta-analysis of misconduct prevalence surveys. Provides the empirical baseline for how common data fabrication and QRPs are across all scientific fields, essential context for evaluating claims of fraud in parapsychology against general rates of scientific misconduct.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 surveys asking scientists about research misconduct, with 18 surveys pooled quantitatively. A random-effects meta-analysis found that 1.97% (95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted fabricating, falsifying, or modifying data at least once, while up to 33.7% admitted questionable research practices. Surveys about colleagues yielded higher rates: 14.12% (95%CI: 9.91–19.72) reported observing falsification and up to 72% observed QRPs. Three methodological factors—self vs. non-self reports, mailed vs. handed surveys, and use of explicit fraud terminology—explained 82% of between-study variance. Medical researchers reported significantly more misconduct. The author concludes these figures are conservative lower bounds.
Links
Related Papers
More in Methodology
Paranormal belief, conspiracy endorsement, and positive wellbeing: a network analysis
Planning Falsifiable Confirmatory Research
Addressing Researcher Fraud: Retrospective, Real-Time, and Preventive Strategies — Including Legal Points and Data Management That Prevents Fraud
Quantum Aspects of the Brain-Mind Relationship: A Hypothesis with Supporting Evidence
Paranormal beliefs and cognitive function: A systematic review and assessment of study quality across four decades of research
📋 Cite this paper
Fanelli, Daniele (2009). How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
@article{fanelli_2009_how_many,
title = {How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data},
author = {Fanelli, Daniele},
year = {2009},
journal = {PLoS ONE},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0005738},
}