Scientific Misconduct

1
Scientific Misconduct

• Problems and Responsibilities
• of Journals
• Martin Blume
• The American Physical Society

2
Obvious Observations

• It is impossible to screen every submission fully
  for misconduct.
• Vigilance on the part of editors and referees is,
  however, necessary.
• Allegations of misconduct must be taken seriously
  and investigated carefully.
• Those accused must be given an opportunity to
  defend themselves, and their rights to
  confidentiality and careful judgment protected.

3
Scientific MisconductMost Common Types

• Failure to refer and plagiarism
• Fabrication of data
• Authorship disputes
• Duplicate submission/publication
• Referee misconduct
• Conflict of interest

4
Who Should Investigate?

• Journals (plagiarism, duplicate
  submission/publication, referee misconduct).
• Institutions (authorship, fabrication of data,
  conflict of interest).
• Government agencies and scientific societies.
• Courts (to be avoided!).

5
Who should impose punishment?

• Institutions?
• Societies?
• Government agencies?
• Publishers?
• Courts?
• What should the punishment be? (Obviously this
  depends on the nature and severity of the
  offense).

6
Desired outcome of this workshop

• A document that summarizes the responsibilities
  of the various players.
• Endorsement of that document by the IUPAP Working
  Group on Communication in Physics and ultimately
  by the IUPAP Council.