Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Examines the history and current cases of research fraud and deception, including the reasons for researcher transgression — reputation and career advancement, the chances of being caught, and the ineffective gatekeeper roles served by publishers and reviewers. It appears that librarians and LIS researchers are unlikely to conduct or publish unreliable research, but problems can arise when librarians distribute unreliable research in their collections. The wisdom of withdrawing all unreliable research from the collection is questioned, however, as some of this research may contain grains of truth that could result in future, reliable research.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Article 19: The United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights. (n.d.) (IFLA/FAIFE), Available: http://www.ifla.org/faife/art19.htm. (Accessed: October 1, 2004)

Babbage, C. (1969) Reflections on the decline of science in England. Farnborough: Gregg . (First published 1830)

Berger, S. (1992) Forgeries and their detection in the rare book world . Libraries and Culture, 27 (1), 59–69 .

Broad, W. (1982) Betrayers of the truth. New York: Simon and Schuster .

Fraud and Misconduct in Library and Information Science Research . (1996) Library and Information Science Research, 18, 199–206 .

Homan, P. (2003) A record enriched: a case for a library catalog note for Michael Bellesiles’s Arming America: the origins of a national gun culture. Part 2. Idaho Librarian, 54 (4). Available: http://www.idaholibraries.org/newidaholibrarian/200305/RecordEnrichedII.htm (Accessed August 12, 2004).

Hughes, C. (1998) Academic medical libraries’ policies and procedures for notifying library users of retracted scientific publications . Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 17 (2), 37–42 .

Kochan, C.A. and Budd, J. (1992) The persistence of fraud in the literature: the Darsee case . Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43 (7), 488–493 .

Kohn, A. (1986) False prophets. Oxford: Basil Blackwell .

10.

LaFollette, M. (2000) Observations on fraud and scientific integrity in a digital environment . Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51 (14), 1334–1337 .

11.

Libraries and intellectual freedom (February 26, 2004— last update). IFLANET. Available: http://www.ifla.org/faife/faife/presen.htm (Accessed October 3, 2004).

12.

Merton, R. (1973) The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .

13.

Mill, J.S. (1985) On liberty. London: Penguin . (First published 1859)

14.

Montagnes, I. (1993) Introduction to the issue: the Freeman affair . Scholarly Publishing, 24 (July), 193–203 .

15.

Piper, P. (2000) Better read that again: web hoaxes and misinformation . Searcher, 8 (8), 40–50 .

16.

Sierpe, E. (2003) Gender and its relationship to perception to computer-mediated communication. Unpublished PhD diss. McGill University. Montreal.

17.

Sowards, S.W. (1988) Historical fabrications in library collections . Collection Management, 10(3/4), 81–88 .

18.

United States . National Library of Medicine. (n.d.) Fact Sheet: Errata, retraction, duplicate publication and comment policy for MEDLINE. Available: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/errata.html (Accessed August 11, 2004).

19.

Warman v. British Columbia Library Association . (2004). Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

20.

Westfall, R. (1973) Newton and the fudge factor . Science, 179, 751–758 .

21.

Young, J.R. (2001) Committee of scholars proposes ethics guidelines for research in cyberspace. Chronicle of Higher Education, November 2, 51-51.

Unreliable Research: are librarians liable?

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References