Fabrication and Falsification of Research Data
After reading the below scenario, consider the following questions.
1. Shin decided to falsify research data because they did not support the theory. Is his behavior appropriate? Without falsifying the data, do you think there are other options for Shin to avoid being blamed by the teacher?
2. The experiment assignment was due soon. Flora was unable to finish her experiment by the deadline, so she used a photo of another object as an observation photo for her experiment. Is her behavior appropriate? Is there another way that Flora could finish her experiment’s observation logs by the deadline to submit her assignment?
Fabrication and falsification of research data or results are serious violations of research ethics. Fabrication is the practice of faking or fabricating data that do not exist in the research process, such as visual images, numerical data, and research procedures or results, and then using these fabricated data as research findings or even publishing them as research work. Falsification refers to the deliberate manipulation of research data, research process, equipment, etc., or changing and deleting some research data by the researchers in order to meet expected research hypotheses. Falsification also includes deliberate concealment of unanticipated or contradictory findings and the over-embellishment of research data, failing to present research results truthfully and accurately.
In sum, researchers should not misuse equipment or even alter the content of data and graphs because of a lack of time to devote to research, publication pressure, or a desire for perfection. In recent years, the review process for journal articles has become more stringent, and information has been disseminated in a more developed way. Each research paper is more likely to be read and examined after its publication, making it easier to find if researchers have engaged in falsification or fabrication. Researchers must not take chances and try to take risks. Not only will doing so undermine public trust in scientific research, but researchers themselves risk facing harsh criticism or having their research careers tainted.
◎ Supplemental Reading Material
[Domestic Case] Beautifying Research Images
A university professor implemented a research project funded by the government and published research results in a globally renowned journal. Researchers from other nations questioned the authenticity of the images. Upon investigation, the graduate student who carried out the study admitted that the images had been overly "beautified" and the original data was not properly preserved, making it impossible to re-examine the initial findings. In the end, the university professor agreed to retract the article, repeat the experiment, and take punishment from the sponsoring authority. The graduate student who had earned a doctorate degree upon publishing also had the degree revoked.
Case Analysis
[Domestic Case] Beautifying Research Images
[Domestic Case] Beautifying Research Images
In this case, the doctoral student who conducted the research engaged in several unethical practices, including excessive embellishment of research images, which prevented research findings from being properly presented in the paper. Furthermore, he failed to responsibly store the raw data, making it impossible to perform a subsequent validation to verify their authenticity. Although his real purpose for doing so remained unknown, it was possible that doing so could make research results more appealing and persuasive; this could easily mislead other researchers into making wrong interpretations and compromise the researcher’s academic integrity. It is a long and difficult journey to rebuild trust. In order to earn the trust and respect of others in the research community, researchers should make every effort to avoid any behavior that could damage their personal reputation.
Moreover, despite the fact that the professor who supervised the doctoral student was not the one who committed the misconduct, he was accountable for his failure to exercise proper supervision, which let the doctoral student falsify the research data, and he also paid for it. Clearly, mutual monitoring between advisors and students as well as between peers (such as lab teammates) plays a crucial role when conducting research. Proper supervision, reminders, and discussions with each other can effectively prevent the occurrence of some research misconduct.