The US National Academy of Sciences has issued 5 reports in the past 28 years on research misconduct and detrimental research practices. Each concluded with a strikingly similar set of recommendations.
In 1989, for example, we were advised of “a need for additional research to clarify the basic factors that influence professional conduct”. The panel of 2002 found that “existing data are insufficient to enable [the committee] to draw definitive conclusions as to which elements of the research environment promote integrity”. And in 2017, the panel report called for government agencies and private foundations to “fund research to quantify, and develop responses to, conditions ... linked to research misconduct”.
In our view, however, the root causes and potential remedies are evident. Ignorance of good research practices is now addressed by mandatory training. Carelessness can be reduced by conscientious mentoring. Fear of failure requires a shift in academia's reward system. Preventing bias requires researchers to have heightened self-awareness and a boost in conscience. And cheaters need to fear detection: they must face meaningful penalties while whistle-blowers remain protected.
Why, then, does the academy repeatedly call for further research when potentially effective remedies are available and yet to be implemented?
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kornfeld, D., Titus, S. More research won't crack misconduct. Nature 548, 31 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/548031a
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/548031a
This article is cited by
-
Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities
Scientometrics (2021)
-
Retraction and Research Integrity Education in China
Science and Engineering Ethics (2019)