• Marcoen J T F Cabbolet.
• Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium, marcoen.cabbolet@vub.ac.be.
• Sci Eng Ethics. 2014 Mar 1; 20 (1): 41-54.

AbstractScientific misconduct is usually assumed to be self-serving. This paper, however, proposes to distinguish between two types of scientific misconduct: 'type one scientific misconduct' is self-serving and leads to falsely positive conclusions about one's own work, while 'type two scientific misconduct' is other-harming and leads to falsely negative conclusions about someone else's work. The focus is then on the latter type, and three known issues are identified as specific forms of such scientific misconduct: biased quality assessment, smear, and officially condoning scientific misconduct. These concern the improper ways how challenges of the prevailing opinion are thwarted in the modern world. The central issue is pseudoskepticism: uttering negative conclusions about someone else's work that are downright false. It is argued that this may be an emotional response, rather than a calculated strategic action. Recommendations for educative and punitive measures are given to prevent and to deal with these three forms of scientific misconduct.

11 keywords...

hide…