THE ETHICIST: RESEARCH
Scientists Behaving Badly: Insights from the Fraud Triangle
Blog No. 2011-02 (July 27, 2011)
NOTE: This posting first appeared on THE ETHICIST, the Academy of Management's ethics blog, http://connect.aomonline.org/resources/614c81fe4f/summary, in Nov 2011. The AOM's THE ETHICIST has three contributors, each one writing a monthly blog in sequence, on (1) research (Lorraine Eden), (2) teaching (Kathy Lund Dean) and (3) professional life (Paul Vaaler). Additional copies of my blog posts, in PDF format, are downloadable from my LinkedIn page at http://www.linkedin.com/in/transferpricingaggies.
Key Insight: Occasionally, journal editors are
confronted with evidence that authors have engaged in unethical behaviors such
as plagiarism, multiple submissions or fabricating data. What causes scientists
to behave badly? I argue that the fraud triangle can provide useful insights
into the pressures that lead scholars to engage in research fraud.
|
From: xxx
To: Lorraine Eden
Sent: Mon 2/22/2010
Subject: ethical question
Hi Lorraine, I have an important ethical question to ask you: I
have received the same article from two different journals to review. One
journal wants me to send them a regular referee form evaluating the quality
of the article and the other wants me to write a commentary on the piece.
Should I inform the editors that the manuscript has been submitted to two
journals simultaneously? Thanks, xxx
-----Original Message-----
From: Lorraine Eden
Sent: Mon 2/22/2010
To: xxx
Subject: Re: ethical question
Dear xxx, I would inform the editors of both journals, attach
the other paper, and not do either review. I'll send you tomorrow my
editorial on journal ethics. Lorraine
-----Original Message-----
From: xxx
Sent: Tues 2/23/2010
To: Eden, Lorraine
Subject: Re: ethical question
Lorraine, Thanks for the editorial on the ethics of scientific
writing. I found it very useful myself, especially the section on redundancy
(self-plagiarism). I was not aware that it would be an issue! Below you will
find the reaction of one of the editors. Rather disappointing I think. I
would have sent the author a rejection.
Best, xxx
-----Original Message-----
From: xxx
Sent: Tues 2/23/21010
To: EDITOR
Subject: FW: request to review...
Dear EDITOR, Thank you for your kind invitation to write a
commentary on paper[ ……] for your journal. I was very surprised when I got
your email yesterday as I had just finished reviewing the SAME article for
another journal. I asked a couple of senior scholars on the usual procedure
for this kind of problem, and they advised me to let you and the other editor
know the article had been simultaneously submitted to two venues. I am
curious to know how this will play out, so please keep me abreast of the
journal's decision regarding this article.
Sincerely, xxx
-----Original Message-----
From: EDITOR
Sent: Tues 2/23/2010
To: xxx
Subject: RE: request to review...
Dear xxx, Thank you so much for this message. This is not
acceptable at our journal. I am going to contact the author and I will let
you know. As far as I know, the author is currently revising the paper for
our journal based on suggestions of two reviewers. If he/she withdraws the
submission of the paper from the other journal it would not be a problem
here. Sincerely, EDITOR
| <><>
I
think that most if not all AOM members would see the email exchange above (which
actually happened; I made minor revisions to the emails) as unethical behavior by
the author. Sending the same or substantially the same paper for review at and
possible publication in two different journals is unacceptable behavior at most
social science journals. At least one of
the journals was unaware that this was happening, based on one editor’s
response, and probably both were unaware. Why would an author engage in this
activity? I argue that insights from the fraud triangle can help explain why and
when scientists are likely to behave badly.
Fraudulent
behavior involves “intentional deception, lying, deceitful pretenses, cunning,
willing misrepresentation of material fact, and deliberate trickery intended to
gain an unfair and dishonest advantage” (Chui 2010: 8). Fraud involves deliberate intent – lying – either
by (1) concealing relevant
facts that the individual is under an obligation to disclose or by (2) distorting
relevant facts. Building on this definition, I define research fraud as a deliberate intent by an author to conceal
or to distort facts relevant to the research process, all the way from the
original research idea through to publication.
Cressey
(1953) argued the individuals are more likely to commit fraud when three
conditions or pressures occur: opportunity, incentive and rationalization. “[I]nformation
asymmetries, uncertainty, or ambiguity combined with absent or lax monitoring
and enforcement mechanisms” create opportunity for fraud (Stuebs and Wilkinson
2010: 27). The individual
must also have an incentive (financial, social or otherwise) to commit fraud.
Third, the individual must rationalize the act as consistent with his or her
code of ethics. Either the individual see the action as compliant (fitting
within existing norms or rules) or strategically noncompliant (modifying or
stretching the interpretation of the rules or norms so they encompass the
action). There is a large literature providing
empirical support to the fraud triangle at both the individual and organizational
levels (e.g., Hogan,
Rezaee, Riley & Velury 2008).
Let’s
apply the fraud triangle to the example above where a reviewer is sent the same
paper by two journals. Eden (2010) and Schminke (2009) provide other examples
of scientists behaving badly where the fraud triangle could also be applied. (Note that the November 2011 issue of Management and Organization Review (MOR)
will also be devoted to research ethics.)
Opportunity, the first
corner of the research fraud triangle, comes from informational hazards, weak
monitoring and poor enforcement mechanisms. Clearly, information asymmetries characterize
the journal submission process. Individuals voluntarily submit papers to
journals for possible publication, and journal editors rely either wholly or primarily
on authors to disclose relevant information about their manuscripts.
Monitoring
mechanisms are typically weak. Most journals now have a “check the box”
mechanism whereby authors must state that their submission is new and not under
review elsewhere. Some journals, such as Journal
of International Business Studies, have an elaborate Code of Ethics, and
authors are required to “check the box” that they have read and abided by the
code (http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/jibs_ethics_code.html).
However, editors normally cannot verify author statements and, given huge number
of submissions, may not have the time or ability for due diligence. Detection depends on serendipity or
accident, as in the case above where the same individual was asked to review
both manuscripts. (Monitoring mechanisms may be improving, however, as journals
start to run submitted manuscripts through cross-checking programs, such as
iThenticate, that highlight overlaps with already published research.)
Lastly,
weak enforcement also creates opportunity. As the case above demonstrates, many
journal editors may not punish authors for misbehavior. When detection and
punishment are low, authors may make a rational benefit-cost calculation and
decide to engage in research fraud.
My
search for the phrase “publish or perish” generated more than 450,000 results
in Google; clearly, the incentive to engage in research fraud is well
known inside and outside of academia. Publication pressures can occur at any stage
of a faculty member’s career, whether searching for the first or a new job,
seeking tenure and/or promotion, or merit salary increases. One might expect
that pre-tenured faculty face the strongest pressures to publish and therefore
might be most expected to engage in research fraud. Schminke
(2009: 588), however, found otherwise based on his interviews with 16 journal
editors: most ethical violations were not caused by ‘‘junior scholars running
ethical yellow lights because of pressures imposed by tenure time lines.’’
Thus, pressures to publish occur across one’s academic career. Moreover,
financial rewards can involve more than simple merit pay increases. Some
universities now pay a faculty member $US 10,000 or even $20,000 for an AOM
publication, providing a strong incentive to engage in research fraud,
particularly where opportunity, the first corner of the fraud triangle, is also
strong.
The
third corner of the research fraud triangle is rationalization. In order to commit research fraud, the scholar
must be able to rationalize the action as consistent with his/her code of
ethics. Either the individual sees the
action as fitting within existing norms or rules, or they can be bent to
encompass the activity. Simple egoism (what benefits me most?) can also be a
rationalizing factor.
As
a starter, authors may simply be unaware of publication norms and rules; for
example, PhD students or junior scholars may not be familiar with existing
rules and procedures at major scholarly journals. Authors may “check the box”
that they have read and abided by the journal’s ethics code without actually
having done so. (How many times have you installed an updated version of a
software program where you had to check the box that you had read the terms and
conditions, and you checked the box – but didn’t read the 30+ pages of terms
and conditions?)
In
the case of research fraud above, where the author sends the same paper through
the review process at two journals, the author may have also rationalized the
behavior on the grounds that the reviewing process of satisfying the demands of
two or three reviewers plus an editor, through two or three rounds of review,
would result in two sufficiently different papers by the end of the
process. Thus, the ends (two separate
publications) justified the means (sending the same paper to two journals).
Moreover,
individuals may be conditioned by their colleagues and peers that it is OK
because “everyone is doing it”. If authors believe or see other scholars also
engaged in strategic noncompliance with ethical norms and rules—particularly
where the behavior is not caught and may even be rewarded -- it is easier to
rationalize engaging in research fraud.
Cressey
(1959) argued that all three corners of the fraud triangle had to occur
simultaneously for individuals to engage in fraudulent behaviors. Similarly, I argue that when opportunity, incentive
and rationalization combine to create strong pressures to engage in research
fraud, we will find scientists behaving badly.
In another blog, I will talk about how to
reduce the pressures for research fraud, but for my first blog on this topic, I would like to hear your views on the
topic of pressures to engage in research fraud. Some issues for possible
discussion and comments might include (but are not limited to):
1.
What
do you see as research fraud?
2.
Please
share examples from your own experience – as an author, reviewer and/or editor
– of pressures affecting research fraud.
3.
Is
the research fraud triangle a useful framework for explaining pressures for scientists
to behave badly?
4.
Can
you provide other examples of the three pressures (opportunity, incentive and
rationalization) in addition to the ones I have above?
5. Some authors argue the appropriate framework
for understanding fraud is a diamond rather than a triangle, adding capability
as a fourth pressure (Wolfe & Hermanson 2004). Capability considers
personal traits and abilities (e.g., intelligence, experience, creativity,
ability to lie and cope with stress) that make it more or less easy for
individuals or organizations to successfully commit fraud. Can capability apply
to research fraud also?
References
Cressey,
D. 1953. Other People’s money; a study in
the social psychology of embezzlement. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Hogan,
C.E., Rezaee, Z., Riley, Jr., R.A., & Velury, U.K. 2008. Financial
statement fraud: Insights from the academic literature. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 27.2: 231-252.
Steubs, M.,
& Wilkinson, B. 2010. Ethics and the tax profession: Restoring the public
interest focus. Accounting and the Public
Interest, 10: 13-35.
Wolfe, D.T., & Hermanson, D.R.
2004. The fraud diamond: Considering the four elements of fraud. The CPA Journal, December: 38-42.
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Chi Anyansi-Archibong, Paul
Beamish, David Bull, Jim Davis, Kathy Lund Dean, Chuck Hermann, Susan Jackson,
Susan Madsen, Janet Salmons, Anne Tsui, Paul Vaaler and C.S. Wong, for helpful
comments on an earlier draft of this blog. The views expressed herein are my
own. I would also like to thank the
other members of the AOM Ethics Education Committee, the AOM Board of
Governors, and Susan Fernandez and Terese Loncar at AOM Headquarters for their
support of THE ETHICIST.
No comments:
Post a Comment