Understanding Research Misconduct: A Comparative Analysis of 120 Cases of Professional Wrongdoing

Figures & data

Table 1: Case Inclusion Criteria

Criterion	Rationale
Location: USA	− Provides a relatively clear and stable set of laws and cultural norms surrounding the 3 sampling areas
Date of occurrence: Jan. 1980–Dec. 2011	− Case conclusion must be at least 1 year old to allow adequate reporting of information on the case- Because widely published cases of misconduct are rare, it is important to work with a broad range of dates- By 1980 norms prohibited all of the behaviors under investigation
Kind of wrongdoing: (1) misconduct, (2) other research violations, or (3) wrongdoing in medical practice	− All involve serious professional violations- Cases are distinct and may serve as comparison cases
Case coverage: Case is described in at least 5 published sources, including articles and reports of agencies and boards	− Indicates social significance of case- Ensures adequate availability of information on the case
Case involves a clear individual wrongdoer upon whom we can focus	− We aim to understand and predict individual behavior, rather than corporate behavior, which may have different dynamics

Table 2: Wrongdoer and Setting Variables: Comparison of Frequencies

Independent Variable	Research Misconduct	Other Research	Medical Practice	X ^2
Setting variables
Academic medical setting	90%a	75%a	3%b	71.03***
Government funding	70%a	58%a	0%b	45.63***
Private funding	33%a,b	63%a	0%b	36.12***
Had an accomplice	10%a	40%b	35%b	10.18**
Others found guilty	20%	33%	35%	2.50
Wrongdoer Variables
Male	75%a	90%b	93%b	5.89*
Born outside United States	10%	20%	20%	1.92
Trained outside United States	15%	18%	25%	1.40
Plea of insanity	0%	0%	5%	4.07
Found unfit to stand trial	0%	0%	0%	−
Evidence of addiction	0%a	0%a	10%b	8.28*
Significant personal problems	5%a	0%a	23%b	13.41***
Claimed following orders/policy	3%	10%	0%	5.43
History of Wrongdoing
Wrongdoing was repeated	68%a	80%a,b	95%b	9.79**
Different kinds of wrongdoing	43%a	65%a,b	75%b	9.30**
Wrongdoing in multiple institutions	18%	20%	28%	1.28
Felony arrests in personal life	3%a	0%a	13%b	7.37*
* = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001. N = 120 cases: 40 Research Misconduct, 40 Other Research, 40 Medical Practice. When chi-squared is significant, percentages that do not share subscripts are significantly different by standardized residual.

Table 3: Reporting, Investigation, and Consequences Variables: Comparison of Frequencies

Independent Variables	Research Misconduct	Other Research	Medical Practice	X ^2
Failed reporting attempts	28%	35%	43%	1.98
Whistleblower Description+
Patient/participant/family	0%a	18%a,b	45%b	38.36***
Subordinate	23%a	10%a,b	5%b
Peer: institutional	15%a	3%b	3%b
Peer: external	5%	8%	8%
Oversight personnel: institutional	15%a	8%a,b	3%b
Oversight personnel: external	5%	13%	10%
Others (e.g., reporter)	18%	25%	15%
Unknown	20%	18%	13%
Investigation
Institutional investigation	88%a	53%a,b	25%b	31.72***
Board or professional body investigation	20%a	23%a	85%b	44.40***
Regulatory oversight body investigation	85%a	75%a	53%b	10.73**
Criminal investigation	33%a	20%a	73%b	24.75***
Civil investigation	10%a	43%a,b	60%b	21.97***
Consequences to Wrongdoer
Loss of job, opportunities, funding …	90%a	50%b	85%a	20.27***
Loss of licensure/credentialing	20%a	15%a	85%b	50.83***
Financial penalties	33%a	30%a	75%b	20.61***
Prison, probation, house arrest	25%a,b	8%a	65%b	31.68***
Treatment, rehabilitation, education	18%	13%	30%	4.06
Wrongdoer still working in the field	48%a,b	25%a	78%b	22.20***
Consequences to Institution
Publication of oversight failure	33%a	70%b	28%a	17.58***
Financial penalties, fines, settlements	18%	30%	18%	2.45
Impact on mission/increased audits …	13%a	48%b	13%a	17.82***
* = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001. N = 120 cases: 40 Research Misconduct, 40 Other Research, 40 Medical Practice. When chi-squared is significant, percentages that do not share subscripts are significantly different by standardized residual.
+ Whistleblower role was run as 1 variable with 8 roles, thus one X ^2 value is reported for all roles.

Table 4: Environmental Variables: Comparison of Mean Scores (ANOVA)

Environmental Variables	Research Misconduct ^+	Other Research	Medical Practice	F
Conflicting roles++	1.15a (.53)	1.75b (.95)	1.05a (.32)	13.28***
Financial reward++	1.33a (.69)	2.00b (.93)	2.23b (.95)	11.70***
Others benefit++	1.30a (.61)	1.98b (.80)	1.83b (.90)	8.26***
Penalized for doing right	1.00 (.00)	1.00 (.00)	1.02 (.16)	n/a
Others penalized++	1.30 (.65)	1.18 (.55)	1.20 (.46)	.56
Mistreatment of wrongdoer	1.08 (.27)	1.02 (.16)	1.00 (.00)	n/a
Ambiguous norms++	1.02a (.15)	1.43b (.55)	1.05a (.22)	16.04***
Vulnerable victims++	1.07a (.35)	1.70b (.79)	1.68b (.69)	12.22***
Oversight failures++	1.65a (.77)	2.13b (.79)	1.78a,b (.77)	4.03*
Position of authority++	1.90a (.74)	2.45b (.68)	1.55a (.81)	14.73***
Collaboration	1.20 (.46)	1.33 (.47)	1.00 (.00)	n/a
Other Variables
History of wrongdoing++	1.30a (.88)	1.65a,b (.86)	2.10b (1.03)	7.45***
Duration	3.83 (1.28)	4.30 (1.47)	4.22 (1.48)	1.31
Number of violations++	2.03a (1.48)	3.63b (1.64)	3.13b (1.49)	11.33***
Number of Sources	19.30a (17.52)	32.23b (23.98)	34.38b (31.19)	4.30*
* = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001. N = 120 cases: 40 Research Misconduct, 40 Other Research, 40 Medical Practice. When ANOVA is significant, means that do not share subscripts are significantly different by Tukey post hoc pairwise comparison.
+ Scores are means with standard deviations in parentheses.
++ MANOVA including these 10 variables was statistically significant, Wilks’ Lambda = .309, p < .001.

Table 5: Qualitative Themes from the Research Misconduct Cases (n = 40)*

1. Self-centered personality or thinkinga. Bright, arrogant, narcissisticb. Thought they would get away with it—it seemed easyc. Lust for scientific success—highly ambitiousd. Greed—increase wealth (rather than just keep job with next grant)	48%
2. Unwarranted certainty—making data fit hypotheses that they thought were correct, making images more clearly represent ‘the truth’	13%
3. Pressure—intense desire for a quick publication or next grant	33%
4. Careless—either with data, images, or supervision	25%
5. Unclear—uncertain about what they were thinking or what contributed to behavior	20%
*Percentages add up to more than 100% because a second code was used in some cases