Investigating and preventing scientific misconduct using Benford’s Law

被引:0
作者
Gregory M. Eckhartt
Graeme D. Ruxton
机构
[1] School of Biology,
[2] University of St Andrews,undefined
来源
Research Integrity and Peer Review | / 8卷
关键词
Scientific misconduct; Peer review; Benford’s Law; Benford’s Law tests; Retracted article testing; Animal behaviour;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Integrity and trust in that integrity are fundamental to academic research. However, procedures for monitoring the trustworthiness of research, and for investigating cases where concern about possible data fraud have been raised are not well established. Here we suggest a practical approach for the investigation of work suspected of fraudulent data manipulation using Benford’s Law. This should be of value to both individual peer-reviewers and academic institutions and journals. In this, we draw inspiration from well-established practices of financial auditing. We provide synthesis of the literature on tests of adherence to Benford’s Law, culminating in advice of a single initial test for digits in each position of numerical strings within a dataset. We also recommend further tests which may prove useful in the event that specific hypotheses regarding the nature of data manipulation can be justified. Importantly, our advice differs from the most common current implementations of tests of Benford’s Law. Furthermore, we apply the approach to previously-published data, highlighting the efficacy of these tests in detecting known irregularities. Finally, we discuss the results of these tests, with reference to their strengths and limitations.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 98 条
[1]  
Stroebe W(2012)Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science Perspect Psychol Sci 7 670-688
[2]  
Postmes T(2009)How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data PLoS One 4 1385-1389
[3]  
Spears R(1990)The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence Jama. 263 211-222
[4]  
Fanelli D(2002)Publication bias in ecology and evolution: an empirical assessment using the ‘trim and fill’method Biol Rev 77 585-600
[5]  
Dickersin K(2010)Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data PLoS One 5 625-629
[6]  
Jennions MD(2019)The MMR vaccine and autism Annu Rev Virol 6 25-32
[7]  
Moeller AP(2018)Fake news and indifference to scientific fact: president Trump’s confused tweets on global warming, climate change and weather Scientometrics. 117 1-17
[8]  
Fanelli D(2018)Assessing data quality and the variability of source data verification auditing methods in clinical research settings J Biomed Inform 83 551-72
[9]  
DeStefano F(2022)Experts identified warning signs of fraudulent research: a qualitative study to inform a screening tool J Clin Epidemiol 151 795-802
[10]  
Shimabukuro TT(1938)The law of anomalous numbers Proc Am Philos Soc 78 543-549