Detection: identifying fraud after publication
Geoffrey P. Webb · 2021
Papers that present interesting findings in top journals will be subject to scrutiny and analysis by readers with a wide range of expertise; this amounts to mass, post-publication peer review. Failure to replicate is listed for only 4 of the 40 cases and in 6 cases, they suggest that outside researchers found inconsistencies or problems with the published data that indicated fraud. Whistle-blowers who have reported their suspicions of research misconduct have played a key role in curtailing the activity of many notorious research frauds and led to the retraction of many of their fraudulent publications. Occasionally, a scientist may come across publications where they are listed amongst the authors without their knowledge or overt consent. In this chapter, the author going to confine the author discussion to flaws and irregularities that might be spotted by a vigilant reviewer or reader of the published paper who does not have access to the raw data for the study.