- Descripción
- 1.) Since the 1980ies, several studies, journalistic researches and juridical verdicts document a growing number of cases of fraud and camouflage in sciences, they happened quite often in renowned institutions (e.g. Harvard University, MIT), published quite often in the most renowned journals (e.g. Science, Nature).
2.) Forms of scientific misconduct. A typology of scientific misconduct can be based on a typology of harm in a closer way: Who are the persons that suffer from scientific misconduct?
3.) Fraud affairs in social and cultural sciences. The probably best known affairs of fraud in social and cultural sciences in recent times are probably the twin"researches" by the British psychologist Sir Cyril Burt and the pseudo-ethnological "field"studies by Carlos Castaneda.
4.) The twilight zone between self-cheating and fraud. The borderline between errors for ones own advantage, paradigmatic self-cheating, being caught in ones own theory system and intended fraud is very thin. It fits in, that several researchers committed fraud, because they were optimistic, that they would find the missing links in the time while waiting for the publication of their work (evaluation, layout, print) and therefore can afford these little "bluffs", to have an advantage towards the competitors and can claim the priority detection for themselves. It has to be especially mentioned that, if this strategy works out, with a little bit of additional luck someone is celebrated as a hero.
5.) The important role of extra-scientific institutions for detecting scientific fraud. The merit of detecting and the change of behaviour of scientific institutions towards plagiarism and camouflage are earned - besides couraged scientists, who passed on information - by extra-scientific institutions (the press, politics). Without these extra-scientific information channels, probably none of these "first generation" fraud cases would be known: the scientific institutions (and journals) were unwilling even to mention this topic. The general de-qualification and pre-horrescending of "every external interference" as scientific damaging is not justified. A science-internal monopoly of information in the way of banning extra-scientific media and groups from investigating the ways of science would have harmful effects for the system of science itself.
6.) Efficiency of scientific control systems, effects of the publication and priority pressure. Only few cases of deviant scientific conduct were detected by anonymous evaluators. The up to now known cases were uncovered in side ways of formal scientific communication through interaction processes (e.g. through reports of “robbed” assistants, colleagues with a bad conscience).
7.) Supporting factors of scientific fraud and camouflage (especially in the US-American science system).
8.) Camouflage and plagiarism in the digital era.
9.) Enforcement of controls or departure from the goal of lawlessness.
10.) "Soft", therefore lucky social and cultural sciences?
- Autor
- Co-autor
- Fecha
- Tipo
- Book Chapter
- NonPeerReviewed
- Idioma
- Identificador