Ten Simple Rules for Scientific Fraud & Misconduct

[Snow Leopard]

Introduction So, here we are! You’ve decided to join the dark side of Science. ‘at’s great! You’ll soon discover a brand new world of surprising results, non-replicable experiments, fabricated data, and funny statistics. But it’s not without risks: fame and shame, retractions and lost grants, and… possibly jail. But you’ve made your choice, so now you need to know how to manage these risks. Only a few years ago, fraud and misconduct was a piece of cake (See the Mechanical Turk, Perpetual motion machine, Life on Moon, Piltdown man, Water memory). But there are lots of new players in town (PubPeer, RetractionWatch, For Be‹er Science, Neuroskeptic to name just a few) who have go‹en pre‹y good at spo‹ing and reporting fraudsters. Furthermore, publishers have started to arm themselves with high-tech tools, and your fellow scientists are willing to name and shame you on social media. To commit fraud or misconduct without ge‹ing caught in 2017 is a real challenge and requires serious dedication to your task. While you’ll never be smarter than an entire community of scientists, we’re generously giving you some simple rules to follow in your brand new career in fraud (see also (Timmer, 2012) for a set of complementary rules). Of course, neither results or (lack of) consequences are guaranteed.

More at:
https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01562601/document

 

[trishrhymes]

This would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

''. If you’re still hesitant about embracing the dark side of science, you can start with a slight misrepresentation to support your hypothesis — a hypothesis you’re sure is right anyway.''

Sound familiar?