Scholars’ preferred solutions for research misconduct: results from a survey of faculty members at America’s top 100 research universities

References

• Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Akers, R. (2009). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• Alalehto, T., & Larsson, D. (2015). Measuring white-collar crime perceptions among public and white-collar offenders: A comparative investigation of four European countries. In J. van Erp, W. Huisman, & G. Walle (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of white-collar and corporate crime in Europe (pp. 106–121). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Applegate, B., Cullen, F., & Fisher, B. (2002). Public views toward crime and correctional policies: Is there a gender gap? Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 89–100. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(01)00127-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aschwanden, C., & Koerth-Baker, M. (2016, April 7). How two grad students uncovered an apparent fraud—And a way to change opinions on transgender rights. FiveThirtyEight, Retrieved from http://www.fivethirtyeight.com
   Google Scholar
• Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2010). Multiple imputation with Mplus. Technical report, version 2. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
   Google Scholar
• Baerlocher, M., O’Brien, J., Newton, M., Gautman, T., & Noble, J. (2010). Data integrity, reliability, and fraud in medical research. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 21, 40–45. doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2009.11.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility: Survey sheds light on the “crisis” rocking research. Nature, 533, 452–454. doi:10.1038/533452a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhattacharjee, Y. (2013). The mind of a con man. New York Times Magazine, April 26.
   Google Scholar
• Bobrow, D., & Dryzek, J. (2000). Policy analysis by design. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bosch, X., & Ross, J. (2012). Ghostwriting: Research misconduct, plagiarism, or fool’s gold? The American Journal of Medicine, 125, 324–326. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.07.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braga, A., Papachristos, A., & Hureau, D. (2014). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31, 633–663. doi:10.1080/07418825.2012.673632
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braxton, J., & Bayer, A. (1994). Perceptions of research misconduct and an analysis of their correlates. Journal of Higher Education, 65, 351–371. doi:10.2307/2943972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruton, S. (2014). Self-plagiarism and textual recycling: Legitimate forms of research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 21, 176–197. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.848071
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, R. (1995). Situational crime prevention. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 19, 91–150. doi:10.1086/449230
   Google Scholar
• Claxton, L. (2005). Scientific authorship: Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutation Research, 589, 17–30. doi:10.1016/j.mrrev.2004.07.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clogg, C. (1979). Some latent structure models for the analysis of Likert-type data. Social Science Research, 8, 287–301. doi:10.1016/S0049-089X(79)80001-0
   Google Scholar
• Cullen, F., Fisher, B., & Applegate, B. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 27, 1–79. doi:10.1086/652198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullen, F., Hartmann, J., & Jonson, C. (2009). Bad guys: Why the public supports punishing white-collar offenders. Crime, Law and Social Change, 51, 31–44. doi:10.1007/s10611-008-9143-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullen, F., Pratt, T., & Turanovic, J. (2016). It’s hopeless: Beyond zero-tolerance probation. Criminology and Public Policy, 15, 1215–1227. doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullen, F., Pratt, T., Turanovic, J., & Butler, L. (2018). When bad news arrives: ProjectHOPE in a post-factual world. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 34, 13–34. doi:10.1177/1043986217750424
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, M. (2003). The role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability Research, 10, 189–201. doi:10.1080/714906092
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Davis, M., & Berry, B. (2018). Scholarly crimes and misdemeanors: Violations of fairness and trust in the academic world. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, M., Riske-Morris, M., & Diaz, S. (2007). Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: Evidence from ORI case files. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 395–414. doi:10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillman, D., Smyth, J., & Christian, L. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design methods (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• DiStefano, C., & Morgan, G. (2014). A comparison of diagonal weighted least squares robust estimation techniques for ordinal data. Structural Equation Modeling, 21, 425–438. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.915373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolling, D., Entorf, H., Hermann, D., & Rupp, T. (2009). Is deterrence effective? Results of a meta-analysis of punishment. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 15, 201–224. doi:10.1007/s10610-008-9097-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ecklund, E., & Lincoln, A. (2016). Failing families, failing science: Work-family conflict in academic science. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS one, 4, e738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang, F., Steen, R., & Casadevali, A. (2013). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 17028–17033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felson, M., & Boba, R. (2010). Crime and everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Flaherty, D. (2011). The vaccine-autism connection: A public health crisis caused by unethical medical practices and fraudulent science. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 45, 1302–1304. doi:10.1345/aph.1Q318
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, P. (1990). Correcting the literature following fraudulent publication. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1416–1419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gary, P. (2007). Adjusting for nonresponse in surveys. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 22, pp. 411–449). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, F., & Dennison, A. (2003). Research misconduct. Clinical Radiology, 58, 499–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godlee, F., & Wager, E. (2012). Research misconduct in the UK. British Medical Journal, 344, d8357. doi:10.1136/bmj.d8357
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grasmick, H., & Bursik, R. (1990). Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law and Society Review, 24, 837–862. doi:10.2307/3053861
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross, C. (2016). Scientific misconduct. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 693–711. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033437
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groves, R., & Peytcheva, E. (2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 167–189. doi:10.1093/poq/nfn011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hackett, E. (1994). A social control perspective on scientific misconduct. Journal of Higher Education, 65, 242–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, A., Lobanov-Rostovsky, C., & Levenson, J. (2010). Widening the net: The effects of transitioning to the Adam Walsh act’s federally mandated sex offender classification system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 503–519. doi:10.1177/0093854810363889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartley, H. (1962). Multiple frame surveys. Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American Statistical Association, 19(6), 203–206.
   Google Scholar
• Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holtfreter, K., Piquero, N., & Piquero, A. (2008). And justice for all? Investigators’ perceptions of punishment for fraud perpetrators. Crime, Law and Social Change, 49, 397–412. doi:10.1007/s10611-008-9110-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M., Pratt, T., & Mays, R. (2019). The perceived causes of research misconduct among faculty members in the natural, social, and applied sciences. Studies in Higher Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1593352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T. (2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1051–1071. doi:10.1093/bjc/azs032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John, L., Lowenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonson, C., Moon, M., & Hendry, J. (2018). One size does not fit all: Traditional lockdown versus multioption responses to school shootings. Journal of School Violence, in press doi:10.1080/15388220.2018.1553719
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jönsson, P., & Wohlin, C. (2006). Benchmarking k-nearest neighbor imputation with homogeneous likert data. Empirical Software Engineering, 11, 463–489. doi:10.1007/s10664-006-9001-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kakuk, P. (2009). The legacy of the Hwang case: Research misconduct in biosciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 545–562. doi:10.1007/s11948-009-9121-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenny, D. (2015). Measuring model fit. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm
   Google Scholar
• Kornfeld, D. (2012). Research misconduct: The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87, 877–881. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e318257ee6a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langbert, M., Quain, A., & Klein, D. (2016). Faculty voter registration in economics, history, journalism, law, and psychology. Econ Journal Watch, 13, 422–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, P., & Lemeshow, S. (1999). Sampling of populations: Methods and applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Liederbach, J., Cullen, F., Sundt, J., & Geis, G. (2001). The criminalization of physician violence: Social control in transformation? Justice Quarterly, 18, 141–170. doi:10.1080/07418820100094851
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilly, J., Cullen, F., & Ball, R. (2010). Criminological theory: Context and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lipton, E., Sanger, D., & Shane, S. (2016, December 13). The perfect weapon: How Russian cyberpower invaded the U.S. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
   Google Scholar
• Loughran, T., Paternoster, R., Chaflin, A., & Wilson, T. (2016). Can rational choice be considered a general theory of crime? Evidence from individual-level panel data. Criminology, 54, 86–112. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12097
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loui, M. (2002). Seven ways to plagiarize: Handling real allegations of research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 529–539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, E. (2000). How prevalent is fraud? That’s a million dollar question. Science, 290, 1662–1663.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinson, B., Anderson, M., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738. doi:10.1038/435737a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCutcheon, A. (2011). Latent class analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mears, D. (2010). American criminal justice policy: An evaluation approach to increasing accountability and effectiveness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nagin, D., Cullen, F., & Jonson, C. (2018). Deterrence, choice, and crime: Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 23). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Characteristics of postsecondary faculty. The condition of education 2017 (NCES 2017-144). Retrieved from http://www.nces.ed.gov
   Google Scholar
• Office of Research Integrity (2019). Definition of research misconduct. Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct
   Google Scholar
• Ogle, M., & Turanovic, J. (2019). Is getting tough with low-risk kids a good idea? The effect of failure to appear detention stays on juvenile recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30, 507–537. doi:10.1177/0887403416682299
   Google Scholar
• Paternoster, R. (1987). The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues. Justice Quarterly, 4, 173–217. doi:10.1080/07418828700089271
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, B., Lombardi, J., Abbey, C., & Craig, D. (2013). The top American research universities: 2013 annual report. Tempe, AZ: The Center for Measuring University Performance.
   Google Scholar
• Pickett, J., & Roche, S. (2018). Questionable, objectionable or criminal? Public opinion on data fraud and selective reporting in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 151–171. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9886-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pratt, T., Cullen, F., Blevins, K., Daigle, L., & Madensen, T. (2006). The empirical status of deterrence theory: A meta-analysis. In F. Cullen, J. Wright, & K. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory, advances in criminological theory (Vol. 15, pp. 367–395). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
   Google Scholar
• Pratt, T. (2008). Rational choice theory, crime control policy, and criminological relevance. Criminology and Public Policy, 7, 43–52. doi:10.1111/cpp.2008.7.issue-1
   Google Scholar
• Pratt, T., & Turanovic, J. (2018). Celerity and deterrence. In D. Nagin, F. Cullen, & C. Jonson (Eds.), Deterrence, choice, and crime: Contemporary perspectives, advances in criminological theory (Vol. 23, pp. 187–210). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pratt, T. (2019). Addicted to incarceration: Corrections policy and the politics of misinformation in the United States (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Pratt, T., & Cullen, F. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta-analysis. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 32, 373–450. doi:10.1086/655357
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pryor, E., Habermann, B., & Broome, M. (2007). Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: A national survey. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 365–369. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.016394
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ranstam, J., Buyse, M., George, S., Evans, S., Geller, N., Scherrer, B., … Lachenbruch, P. (2000). Fraud in medical research: An international survey of biostatisticians. Controlled Clinical Trials, 21, 415–427.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rawat, S., & Meena, S. (2014). Publish or perish: Where are we heading? Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 19, 87–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reisig, M., & Bain, S. (2016). University legitimacy and student compliance with academic dishonesty codes: A partial test of the process-based model of self-regulation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 83–101. doi:10.1177/0093854815611165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaeian, M. (2014). A review of diverse types of research misconduct. Middle East Journal of Family Medicine, 12, 43–44.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, J., & Stalans, L. (2000). Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, P., Hirst, L., & Davies, M. (2011). An investigation into the effect of respondent gender, victim age, and perpetrator treatment on public attitudes towards sex offenders, sex offender treatment, and sex offender rehabilitation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 511–530. doi:10.1080/10509674.2011.602472
   Google Scholar
• Rohrich, R., & Sullivan, D. (2009). Plagiarism and dual publication: Review of the issues and policy statement. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Journal, 124, 1333–1339. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b59d42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruff, K. (2015). Scientific journals and conflict of interest disclosure: What progress has been made? Environmental Health, 14, 45. doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0035-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarewitz, D. (2016). The pressure to publish pushes down quality. Nature, 533, 147. doi:10.1038/533147a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebo, P., Maisonneuve, H., Cerutti, B., Fournier, J., Senn, N., & Haller, D. (2017). Rates, delays, and completeness of general practitioners’ responses to a postal versus web-based survey: A randomized trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19, e83. doi:10.2196/jmir.6308
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sovacool, B. (2005). Using criminalization and due process to reduce scientific misconduct. American Journal of Bioethics, 5, w1–w7. doi:10.1080/15265160500313242
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sox, H., & Rennie, D. (2006). Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing in the medical literature: Lessons from the poehlman case. Annals of Internal Medicine, 144, 609–613.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutherland, E. (1945). Is “white collar crime” crime? American Sociological Review, 10, 132–139. doi:10.2307/2085628
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thielo, A., Cullen, F., Cohen, D., & Chouhy, C. (2016). Rehabilitation in a red state: Public support for correctional reform in Texas. Criminology and Public Policy, 15, 137–170. doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tijdink, J., Verbeke, R., & Smulders, Y. (2014). Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9, 64–71. doi:10.1177/1556264614552421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tittle, C.R. (1995). Control balance: toward a general theory of deviance. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, T., & Darley, J. (2000). Building a law-abiding society: Taking public views about morality and the legitimacy of legal authorities into account when formulating substantive law. Hofstra Law Review, 28, 707–739.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, T., & Jackson, J. (2014). Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: Motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 78–95. doi:10.1037/a0034514
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unnever, J., & Cullen, F. (2010). The social sources of Americans’ punitiveness: A test of three competing models. Criminology, 48, 99–130. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00181.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade, N. (1981). A diversion of the quest for truth. Science, 211, 1022–1025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wåhlberg, A., & Poom, L. (2015). An empirical test of nonresponse bias in Internet surveys. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37, 336–347. doi:10.1080/01973533.2015.1111212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, N., & Holtfreter, K. (2015). Applying criminological theory to academic fraud. Journal of Financial Crime, 22, 48–62. doi:10.1108/JFC-12-2013-0071
   Google Scholar
• Welch, K. (2011). Parental status and punitiveness: Moderating effects of gender and concern about crime. Crime and Delinquency, 57, 878–906. doi:10.1177/0011128708330101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woolf, P. (1986). Pressure to publish and fraud in science. Annals of Internal Medicine, 104, 254–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar