Some researchers 'dope' their data – A look back at the cheating scandals of 2024
Opinion: Misconduct in research is similar to doping in sports.
Published
Most athletes are honest. Researchers are too. But some athletes dope. And some researchers manipulate their data.
Manipulated results
In 2024, a prominent brain cancer researcher at Harvard Medical School was accused of fraud. Khalid Shah is a professor and director of a research centre for stem cells and applied immunotherapy.
The whistleblower was a sleuth. These are researchers who search for and investigate suspicious research. These scientific watchdogs voluntarily dedicate their efforts to exposing fraudulent practices. We have them in Norway too.
This particular sleuth, Elisabeth Bik, identified 59 instances of suspicious image use in Shah's studies. He is alleged to have reused images from his own and other researchers' studies to present results in new studies.
Most viewed
Harvard Medical School is now reviewing 29 studies. Shah has yet to comment on the allegations.
Too good to be true
It's often the results themselves that expose both cheating athletes and researchers. They're simply too good to be true.
Retraction Watch is an independent website that provides an overview of scientific articles that have been retracted due to serious errors or research misconduct.
On their top ten list for 2024, we find a researcher from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). Filippo Berto was praised for producing a large number of scientific articles.
The professor published 471 articles in his field, materials technology, between 2019 and 2022. That amounts to two articles a week. This made him Norway's most published researcher, according to university newspaper Khrono (link in Norwegian).
But it was too good to be true.
A British researcher became suspicious. A Norwegian sleuth reported the concerns to NTNU.
A scientific article is supposed to be original. Berto allegedly submitted articles that were completely or almost identical to different journals. This type of duplicate publication violates research ethics. He is also under investigation for 'salami slicing,' where research results are divided into smaller pieces – like slicing a salami – and published as separate papers to inflate publication counts.
Berto has since left NTNU, but the university's ethics committee is now reviewing whether he violated research ethics, according to Universitetsavisa (link in Norwegian).
Cheating pays off
When an athlete or researcher achieves good results, the sports team and the university celebrate. There are financial incentives as well. Winners receive funding – athletes through sponsorships, researchers through grants for further research. Institutions benefit too.
For instance, NTNU received funding for every article Berto authored.
A cancer research centre at the University of Maryland in the USA also received public funding for its work. Last year, its director, Professor Richard Eckert, was found guilty of misconduct in 13 scientific articles and two research grant applications. According to the Office of Research Integrity, he is now barred from applying for funding for the next eight years.
Cheaters have helpers
Doped athletes often have the support of unscrupulous doctors and corrupt laboratories. Similarly, dishonest researchers are backed by predatory journals, paper mills, and unethical publishers.
Researchers seeking to fabricate or enhance their results can publish in journals with no quality control, purchase pre-written articles, or copy text from existing publications.
A 2023 count revealed that approximately 1,000 publishers are behind 15,000 predatory journals, according to two professors on the website Conversation. This figure is equivalent to the number of reputable journals.
Some countries are more lenient than others when it comes to athletes and researchers who cheat. Some even systematise dishonesty. In December, the newspaper El País reported that universities in Saudi Arabia pay large sums to foreign researchers to lie about where they work. This boosts the Saudi universities' standings on international ranking lists.
AI against AI
In 2024, the use of AI among researchers manipulating data and results has increased.
Just like in sports, there is a race to stay ahead. The dopers develop new methods, and the anti-dopers develop new ways to expose them. In research, AI is used both to commit fraud and to detect it.
The speed and volume of text AI can process make it easier to detect plagiarism.
In Norway, two highly publicised plagiarism cases emerged last year – albeit at the student level. First, Sandra Borch (Centre Party) resigned as Minister of Education after plagiarising parts of her master's thesis. Shortly afterwards, Minister of Health Ingvild Kjerkol (Labour Party) stepped down when Nord University concluded that her master's thesis was also partially plagiarised.
Only one on the podium
Teammates cheer when an athlete succeeds, and co-authors celebrate a researcher's achievements. The recognition often extends to them as well. But when fraud is uncovered, everyone distances themselves. They claim they knew nothing, saw nothing, and heard nothing.
Unlike in sports, researchers attach their names to poor results. Scientific articles, especially in medicine and natural sciences, often have multiple authors. Everyone shares credit – and publication points – when the work is published. But if allegations of misconduct arise, they deny responsibility. They claim they only contributed a small part and were unaware of the fraud.
Even in 2024, the rule remains: One researcher takes the blame for the misconduct, while the co-authors go unscathed.
Nahiro Kameta researched nanomaterials at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology in Japan.
An investigation revealed that Kameta manipulated images by cropping sections and presented them as something other than what they were. He also altered the scale in figures to make elements appear larger than they were. 13 of his studies have been retracted, with more under investigation.
Last year, Kameta lost his job and was ordered to repay research funds. His co-authors, however, continue their work.
Invalidating results – a slow process
When cheaters are caught, they typically disappear from sports or research. While they rarely face prison, they are banned, and their results are invalidated.
In sports, medals are stripped immediately. In research, however, retracting fraudulent articles takes much longer.
Joachim Boldt holds the record for most retracted scientific articles, according to Retraction Watch.
Boldt, a researcher and anesthesiologist, studied a substance intended to regulate blood pressure during surgeries. He lost his job at the University of Giessen in Germany in 2011 due to research misconduct. However, for some journals more than a decade has passed before they retracted his articles. In 2024, 26 more articles authored by Boldt were finally retracted.
Who is responsible?
When an athlete or researcher is caught cheating, they are often left to face the consequences alone. Sports teams and universities claim they knew nothing, saw nothing, and heard nothing.
But could they have done more? How thoroughly did they investigate? Have they taken responsibility and implemented measures to prevent their athletes or researchers from succumbing to temptation? Do they investigate thoroughly when suspicions arise?
Performance pressure is often blamed for leading individuals to artificially inflate their results. In some countries, researchers who fail to publish risk losing their jobs, while in Norway, they may lose the opportunity to continue their careers in research.
Some researchers argue that they receive insufficient training on what is permissible and what is not. It is the responsibility of research institutions to provide adequate education in research ethics for young and new researchers.
The most important step, however, is to be willing to scrutinise suspiciously good or unusual results. In most of the misconduct cases uncovered in 2024, the whistleblowers came from outside the institution.
Research institutions need to wake up.
As the secretary of NTNU's research ethics committee told Universitetsavisa regarding Filippo Berto's enormous production:
"Perhaps it should have raised some alarms."
———
Translated by Alette Bjordal Gjellesvik
Read the Norwegian version of this article on forskning.no
Subscribe to our newsletter
The latest news from Science Norway, sent twice a week and completely free.
