Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Peers nip misconduct in the bud


A new survey shows that informal intervention can often avert much irresponsible scientific behaviour, and is not as risky as people might fear, say Gerald Koocher and Patricia Keith-Spiegel.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Acting on their suspicions


  1. Wenger, N. S., Korenman, S. G., Berk, R. & Liu, H. Evaluation Rev. 23, 553–570 (1999).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Swazey, J. P., Anderson, M. S. & Lewis, K. S. Am. Sci. 81, 542–554 (1993).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Office of Research Integrity. Questions and Answers: 42 CFR Part 93 (2006). Available at

  4. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S. & de Vries, R. Nature 435, 737–738 (2005).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Whitley, B. E. & Keith-Spiegel, P. Academic Dishonesty: An Educator's Guide (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Additional information

See also Opinion, page 436 .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koocher, G., Keith-Spiegel, P. Peers nip misconduct in the bud. Nature 466, 438–440 (2010).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing