Scientific fraud in the digital age

Transcription

1 Available online at Scholars Research Library Der Pharma Chemica, 2013, 5(1):28-38 ( ISSN X CODEN (USA): PCHHAX Scientific fraud in the digital age * a,b a Materials and Corrosion Laboratory, Taif University, Faculty of Science, Chemistry Department, Taif, Hawiya 888, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia b Electrochemistry Research Laboratory, Ain Shams University, Faculty of Education, Chemistry Department, Roxy, Cairo, Egypt ABSTRACT Who is responsible for discovering a plagiarism in PhD dissertations? This question has been raised after detecting the plagiarism scandal in Germany. The most prominent victim of the scandal of plagiarized doctoral dissertations by politicians was former defence minister Guttenberg. Two different case studies have been studied in this article. This article examines the current level of fraud in PhD dissertations and presents a proposal that involves conducting data audits of submitted manuscripts to prevent publications of fraudulent work Keywords: Fabrication; Fraud; PhD dissertations; Scientific Misconduct; Plagiarism. INTRODUCTION The most famous victim of the scandal of plagiarized doctoral dissertations by politicians was former defence minister Guttenberg. His PhD title was withdrawn, and he resigned from his career. He was followed by several other politicians, and now even the German Education and Research Minister Annette Schavan is facing allegations that she plagiarized parts of her dissertation, published in A Web site, called schavanplag (in German) has listed 56 incidents in which the anonymous accuser says Schavan copied phrasing from improperly cited sources[1]. The interesting thing is that for all these people, the plagiarism was detected only because of this digital age that we live in. The only role of universities has been to respond to allegations that are especially well documented and have caused a reasonable amount of public uproar. Many questions raised for example, Don't the universities themselves bear any responsibility for letting this plagiarism go undetected?. Plagiarism in journal publications is a large concern because the professors are often running their own labs, doing their own research, with very little oversight. The only chance to catch fraud is through a careful analysis of their publications, which is done both by the publications themselves, their peers, and the public at large[2]. Regarding PhD theses, the student is working with an advisor, doing (hopefully) original research. Any actual publications the student submits will go through the peer-review process, which will hopefully find any plagiarized references. Regarding the dissertation itself, it's often simply cut-and-paste from their actual publications, and once submitted, never read again[2]. It's likely for this reason that people probably don't dedicate much effort to finding plagiarized works in their thesis. The student is doing original work, as verified by their advisor and their committee, and any publications by the student have been peer-reviewed. No one cares about their thesis, and if they try to continue their behaviour as they progress in their career then they'll simply get caught when it actually matters (i.e., during the peer-review process) in the future[2]. Trust and integrity have always been central components of the basic science research enterprise[3]. For centuries scientists have successfully policed themselves, preserving their shared values. While seventeenth century mechanisms, created and imposed by the emerging scientific community, 28

2 used to adequately regulate the profession[3]. The tremendous growth and expansion of science, particularly within this digital age started in the last half century, has made self-regulation of scientific conduct significantly more difficult and complex[3]. In this work, a case of admitted scientific fraud has shed new light on the system that ensures the integrity of the scientific literature. An attempt is used to conduct data audits on couple of PhD dissertations and the articles extracted from those PhD dissertations. On continuing using our new technique that has been suggested in our previous study[4] that uses digitizing software to develop a proposal that involves conducting data audits to prevent publications of fraudulent work. MATERIALS AND METHODS The following software programs have been used in this investigation: - Origin Pro from Origin Lab version 8, - SigmaPlot 11.0, from scientific computing world, - UN-SCAN-IT, Graph Digitizing Software, from The graph digitizing software has been used to get the data that used in graphing all figures in the article. SigmaPlot and Origin have been used to do some calculations and graphical analysis that proof the fabrication of the data RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In the investigated a PhD dissertation with call number (2000) titled Studies on the corrosion and electrochemical behaviour of aluminium and its alloys in some aqueous solutions has been investigated. Comparing the data presented in the PhD dissertation and the articles published from this thesis [5-7] we can find the following evidences of misconduct: 1- Figure (90) in the PhD dissertation with call number , with figure caption EIS response of the three Al samples in 0.50 N Na 2 SO 4 solution at the (OCP) and at 30 C (1) pure Al; Al+6% Cu alloy, (3) Al+ 6% Si alloy is completely different from Figure 2 in article extracted from this dissertation with same figure caption[5]. (See Table Figure (96) in the PhD dissertation with call number , with figure caption Typical complex plane impedance plot measured for pure Al in 0.5N Na 2 SO N NaX solution, (ph 6.8) at the OCP and at 30 C (1) 0.00N; (2) NaI ; (3) NaBr ; (4) NaCl is completely different from Figure 5 in the article extracted from this dissertation with same figure caption[5], see Table The same misconduct is committed in Figure (100) in the PhD dissertation with call number and Figure (10) in the article [5], see Table The same form of fraud is presented in Figures (205, 210, 214, 215, 216 and 217) in the PhD dissertation with call number and their corresponding figures in the extracted article from the PhD dissertation with call number [6], see Table The same form of fraud is presented in Figures (5, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 16) in the PhD dissertation with call number and their corresponding figures (1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8) in the extracted article[7] from the PhD dissertation with call number with the same caption. see Table 3. 29

3 Table 1: Comparison between Figures presented in the PhD dissertation and the same figures when published in reference[5] Figures from article[5] All experimental conditions are the same but the figures are completely different. As can be seen From Table one that the figures presented in the PhD dissertation with call number are completely different from that submitted and published in reference [5]. 30

4 Table 2: Comparison between Figures presented in the PhD dissertation and the same figures when published in reference [6] Figures from article[6] 31

5 Figures from article[6] All experimental conditions are the same but the figures are completely different. 32

6 Table 3: Comparison between Figures presented in the PhD dissertation and the same figures when published in reference [7] Figures from article[7] 33

7 Figures from article[7] 34

8 Figures from article[7] 35

9 Figures from article[7] The responsibility of the PhD candidate to follow the main academic goal: the search for the truth with true methods and true intent. As can be seen in the analysed dissertations that both student and supervisors are carless to find the truth and they are both completely responsible for that misconduct. Do we really blame mentors (or: advisors) for failing to detect plagiarism when the problem is on the other side of this mentor-mentee relationship?. If the student commit fraud in his thesis, what about the articles that have been published with totally different data?, and with the supervisor as the corresponding author for those articles. I think that both the supervisor and the student be 100% sure that no one will read this dissertation again. The student and the supervisors have get benefits and prizes and get promoted due to this shameless fraud. Another kind of misconduct in PhD dissertation appeared in PhD dissertation with call number (2007), titled Studies of the corrosion inhibition of steel in some aqueous solutions the student in the previous dissertation 36

10 become the supervisor in this dissertation with one common supervisor in both dissertations. A new type of fraud is appeared in this 312 pages dissertation in all experimental techniques used. I have discussed this type of fraud in details elsewhere[4]. An example will be presented here to describe a new technique that has been suggested that include using digitizing software to develop a proposal that involves conducting data audits of to prevent publications of fraudulent work. Table 4 shows fake data presented in the PhD dissertation appeared in PhD thesis with call number (2007). Table 4: Examples from data presented in PhD dissertation with call number (2007) All data presented in these figures are one set of data multiplied by a factor ph ph 2 Weight loss / mg cm Weight loss / mg cm Immersion time / h Immersion time / h -Z im / Ω cm ph Z re / Ω cm 2 log (j / A cm -2 ) ph E / mv(sce) These fake data has been published in references [8, 9]. In the article[10] titled The inhibition of low carbon steel corrosion in hydrochloric acid solutions by succinic acid Part I. Weight loss, polarization, EIS, PZC, EDX and SEM studies that cited in Electrochimica Acta which is The official journal of the International Society of Electrochemistry (ISE) with impact factor according to journal citation report, Authors claimed that they studied the effect of succinic acid (SA) on the corrosion inhibition of a low carbon steel (LCS) electrode in aerated non-stirred 1.0M HCl solutions in the ph range (2 8) at 25 C using weight loss, potentiodynamic polarization and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) techniques. In our previous study [4] it has been confirmed that all the results presented in this article [10] with clear cut evidences are fake. The investigation presented [4] shows that the curves are identical with little shift to right or left that is too good to be experimental data and we proved that these results are fabricated and never been experimentally obtained. The same fabrication technique was used in falsifying the data presented in other articles [5-9, 11-31] 37

11 This article proves the fraud beyond any doubt committed in those PhD dissertations. Due to the presence of corruption in academia, officials in charge of maintaining integrity of research routinely cover up fraud, and this is well known. Scientific research is widely believed to be the pursuit of objective truth with a view to providing benefits for mankind. The pursuit of truth is through the development and testing of hypotheses using reliable methods. In this respect, electrochemistry and corrosion studies are not different, for while their principle aim is to uncover the electrochemical phenomena and their effects, this is done with the purpose of discovering the truth behind these phenomena towards a particular material[32]. CONCLUSION The primary focus of this paper is to show the fraud and misconduct in some PhD dissertations and their extracted articles that published in highly reputable specialized journals to encourage the scientific community to develop mores and guidelines that prescribe professional conduct in the routine developing and publishing of scientific works. Acknowledgements I am indebted to scientific research authorities who inspired me to write this manuscript. REFERENCES [1] G Vogel, German Research Minister Faces Plagiarism Allegations, in, Science Magazine,2012. [2] Who is responsible for detecting plagiarism in a PhD thesis?, in, Academia beta,2012. [3] D Greenbaum, RESEARCH FRAUD: METHODS FOR DEALING WITH AN ISSUE THAT NEGATIVELY IMPACTS SOCIETY S VIEW OF SCIENCE, in: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW, [4] K F Khaled, Der Pharma Chemica, 2013, 5. [5] S S A Rehim, H H Hassan, M A Amin, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2002, 187, [6] S S Abd El Rehim, H H Hassan, M A Amin, Corros. Sci., 2004, 46, [7] S S Abdel Rehim, H H Hassan, M A Amin, J. Appl. Electrochem., 2002, 32, [8] M A Amin, S S Abd El-Rehim, E E F El-Sherbini, R S Bayoumi, Electrochim. Acta, 2007, 52, [9] M A Amin, S S A El-Rehim, E E F El-Sherbini, R S Bayoumi, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci, 2008, 3, [10] M A Amin, S S A El-Rehim, E E F El-Sherbini, R S Bayoumi, Electrochim. Acta, 2007, 52, [11] M A Amin, Corros. Sci., 2010, 52, [12] M A Amin, S S Abd El-Rehim, E E F El-Sherbini, R S Bayoumi, Electrochim. Acta, 2007, 52, [13] S S Abd El Rehim, H H Hassan, M A Amin, Mater. Chem. Phys., 2001, 70, [14] S S A El Rehim, H H Hassan, M A Amin, Mater. Chem. Phys., 2003, 78, [15] M A Amin, J. Appl. Electrochem., 2006, 36, [16] H H Hassan, E Abdelghani, M A Amin, Electrochim. Acta, 2007, 52, [17] M A Amin, S S Abd El Rehim, M M El-Naggar, H T M Abdel-Fatah, Journal of Materials Science, 2009, 44, [18] S S Abd El Rehim, E E Foad El-Sherbini, M A Amin, J. Electroanal. Chem., 2003, 560, [19] M A Amin, S S Abdel Rehim, Electrochim. Acta, 2004, 49, [20] S S Abdel Rehim, H H Hassan, M A Amin, Corros. Sci., 2004, 46, [21] M A Amin, Electrochim. Acta, 2005, 50, [22] M A Amin, S S Abd El Rehim, E E F El Sherbini, Electrochim. Acta, 2006, 51, [23] H H Hassan, M A Amin, S Gubbala, M K Sunkara, Electrochim. Acta, 2007, 52, [24] O A Hazzazi, A M Zaki, M A Amin, S S Abd El Rehim, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci, 2008, 3, [25] M A Amin, S S Abd El Rehim, S O Moussa, A S Ellithy, Electrochim. Acta, 2008, 53, [26] M A Amin, H H Hassan, S S Abd El Rehim, Electrochim. Acta, 2008, 53, [27] M Amin, H Hassan, O Hazzazi, M Qhatani, J. Appl. Electrochem., 2008, 38, [28] M Amin, J. Appl. Electrochem., 2009, 39, [29] M A Amin, Electrochim. Acta, 2009, 54, [30] M A Amin, Q Mohsen, O A Hazzazi, Mater. Chem. Phys., 2009, 114, [31] M A Amin, S S A Ei-Rehim, E E F El-Sherbini, O A Hazzazi, M N Abbas, Corros. Sci., 2009, 51, [32] I F H Purchase, Toxicology, 2004, 202,