Is Research Fraud on the Rise? Research fraud appears to be increasing. This may be due to both growing awareness and structural pressures in the scientific system.

Research Fraud: The Falsification and Fabrication in Research Data

Research fraud has profoundly negative impacts - on science and progress, on public health, on science support, etc. If you work in and around science, or if you read science - this topic is absolutely vital to be aware of.

Real-World Example of the Outcomes of Research Fraud: The Anti-Vaccine Movement

The fraudulent 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield falsely linking vaccines to autism led to vaccine hesitancy worldwide.

Research fraud has direct consequences on human lives:

Whole fields of research have been underpinned by fraud, potentially calling into question all of the research in the field. E.g. turmeric and many spices, alzheimer treatment. This can result in potentially billions of wasted dollars from chasing false leads. Patients and families suffer due to false hope or ineffective treatments. Treatments themselves may also be dangerous. Fraud misleads researchers, setting entire fields back by years or decades.

The different flavours of research fraud

Data Manipulation & Fabrication: Researchers alter, fabricate, or selectively report data to make results appear significant. Common methods include: Image duplication and manipulation (e.g., reusing the same microscopy images in different experiments). Cherry-picking data (only reporting results that support a hypothesis and omitting conflicting results). “Beautifying” data (smoothing out variations to make trends appear stronger).

Ghostwriting & Fake Authorship: Researchers pay or are paid to have their name on a paper they did not write.

Citation Fraud & Impact Factor Manipulation: Researchers pay to have their papers cited to boost rankings.

Predatory Journals: Journals that publish anything for a fee without proper peer review. They often appear to be legitimate. Challenge: the list of predatory journals is moving quickly. Tip: It’s always good to check on the timeline of studies being submitted and published. Was that turnaround under a month? That’s a good indication that the journal is predatory. This isn’t perfect, but it’s a start!

The Role of Scientific Publishing in the Prevalence of Research Fraud

Publishers charge exorbitant fees for both publishing and accessing research:

Authors pay to publish (sometimes $5,000–$10,000/paper depending on the journal and open-access).

Institutions pay to access research (journal subscriptions can cost millions annually).
Readers pay per article (often $30–$50 per paper), even when research was taxpayer-funded.

Scientists do all the work for free—writing papers, reviewing submissions, and even editing for journals

Peer review should act as a quality control measure, but in reality, it is deeply flawed:

Reviewers are unpaid volunteers who often do quick, superficial checks due to time constraints.

Many journals struggle to find qualified reviewers due to the above, leading to low-quality or rushed reviews.
Reviewers rarely verify raw data—they mostly check the narrative and conclusions, making it easy for manipulated data to slip through.

Can we just trust peer review? No. This is why critical appraisal of studies we read is fundemental. Just because it’s published doesn’t mean it’s a good study.

Misconception: If it’s in a “reputable” journal it’s fine. Reality: This is an issue in any journal. Critical appraisal is fundemental.

The "Publish or Perish" Culture Fuels a Flood of Papers

Scientists are under pressure to publish frequently

Journals prefer "exciting" results—controversial, groundbreaking findings are more likely to be published than negative or replication studies. Science sensationalism issues.
Negative results and replication studies are rarely accepted, meaning scientists may manipulate data to ensure a positive outcome.

Science is increasingly driven by the same forces that govern social media—the attention economy. In this system, engagement, hype, and sensationalism determine success, rather than accuracy, rigor, and integrity. Just like influencers optimize content for clicks, scientists are optimizing research for impact factor and media attention.

Journals prefer “exciting” findings that attract citations and media coverage.

Researchers feel pressure to exaggerate or manipulate results to make their work seem groundbreaking.
Studies that promise "miracle cures" or "revolutionary discoveries" are more likely to get published and shared.

How this encourages scientific fraud:

Scientists are competing for grants, tenure, and recognition—and attention helps.

More citations = more funding = higher chances of career advancement.
This creates an incentive to manipulate, exaggerate, or fabricate findings to stay relevant.

IMPORTANT

Some scientists end up doing bad practices oblivious to the fact that they’re bad - e.g. p-hacking. In many cases, this isn’t malicious. Stronger peer review could better reduce some of these issues... granted, that may reduce publisher profits...

Reminder, profit margins of major publishers are HUGE. They take advantage of the vulnerabilities of scientists due to the publish or perish model, creating a fertile environment for a lot of fraud...

The fact that scientists are going out of their way to correct studies (for no pay, often with significant threats to their careers when it’s not annonymous) is a good indication that scientists deeply care about this issue.

Big publishers are also recognising the problem. Many have now made a concerted effort to e.g. publish more replicatory studies. More work is needed, specifically with respect to the exploitation of scientists (who at the end of the day just want to see good science - because they understand it’s value).

Science cannot effectively self-correct unless certain systemic issues are addressed:

1. Ending the "Publish or Perish" Culture. The toxic expectation that scientists must constantly publish or risk their careers leads to fraud, rushed research, and unreliable studies. Reforming research incentives—valuing quality over quantity—is necessary for self-correction to work.

2. Fixing the Scientific Publishing Industry. Publishers currently prioritize profit over integrity, allowing fraud to thrive. Journals should embrace negative results and replication studies, which are crucial for real self-correction.

3. Strengthening Research Integrity & Oversight. Stronger peer review and fraud detection tools can help catch manipulated data before publication. Faster retractions and better accountability are needed.

4. Shifting Public & Scientific Expectations. Society needs to stop chasing sensational scientific breakthroughs and embrace incremental, honest progress.

Science is a human enterprise. It’s still the best way to understand the world around us, the best way to progress societally for so many things, but there are some significant human issues that need to be addressed. Critical appraisal of science is fundemental. Reality - most published science is bad at this point. Now, what are we going to do about it?

Bad science is a bigger problem than you think. Podcast Recap