Article Preview
TopIntroduction
Fraud and the falsification of scientific results are not novel phenomena, but they have certainly had devastating modern consequences in our complex, fragile society, which has been aptly dubbed, a “risk society” (Beck, 1998). Currently, social networks act as echo chambers that quickly disseminate content that may be merely a rumor or material that has been created with fraudulent intent, similar to the way an epidemic infection spreads between communication networks (Kucharski, 2016).
Times have changed since the popularization of the mythical woodcutting by Dürer that ended up creating a specimen that, although non-existent, impregnated the collective imagination as a product of the pictorial mythification of an exotic white rhinoceros that Dürer had never seen. If a fraudulent image could easily become a cultural icon even then, a more-or-less deliberate falsification that would, at the very least, have been considered reprehensible, today there is an urgent and widely acknowledged concern in all areas of society, especially in the scientific community, to find solutions that make it possible to quell the contemporary epidemic of fraudulent content. This so-called, “fake news,” proliferates and spreads throughout communication networks, undermining the foundations of modern society; in fact, some believe that we are already heading toward a new age called, the “Post-Truth era” (D'Ancona, 2017; Keyes, 2004). This issue is also being debated within the core bastions of the scientific community, which are dedicated to science’s public communication (Lynch, 2017; Sismondo, 2017).
In this urgent and necessary contemporary debate, it is especially important to establish procedures and develop technologies that can respond to the challenge posed by this epidemic of counterfeits, especially in areas of professional relevance, as we are facing increasingly sophisticated methods of falsification of scientific images, which circulate everywhere, without any limitation, and whose veracity is increasingly difficult to put to the test (López-Cantos & Maestre, 2019).
According to the results of a recent meta-analysis, at least 2% of researchers have admitted that they intentionally commit fraud in their research (Fanelli and Tregenza, 2009). These inappropriate behaviors range from overtly fabricating/manipulating research data/results to carefully deciding what to omit/select in a biased way during the analysis. It may also entail presenting the conclusions of the research in a certain way or even appropriating other’s ideas (i.e., not providing proper citations).
Recent studies, however, share figures that are even more worrisome, as approximately 10% of scientists say that they are either aware of or involved in some type of fraudulent practice during the research process (Fitzpatrick, 2018). Among the scientific community, the magnitude of the problem has created a growing sense of urgency and concern. For example, this has recently been expressed in newly formed scholarly bodies, like ethics committees (Jacob, 2019), as well as the editorials of prestigious publications, such as Nature and The Lancet (Higgins, 2016; Marmot, 2017). These mediums address the current challenges posed by the phenomenon of fraud in scientific publications. Increasingly, they often serve as portals, or watchdogs, which the research community can utilize to denounce corrupt practices (Didier and Guaspare-Cartron, 2018). However, according to data from RetractionWatch.com, only 684 items out of 800,000 total (less than 1%) were withdrawn from publication in 2015.
Figure 1. Retractions. (Brainard, 2018)