Should scientists, statisticians, and other researchers be held to the same legal standards as certified public accountants or other actors involved in business or commercial activity? What about research organizations that rely on fraudulent research methods or predatory publishers who publish fraudulent research? This paper explores several possible theories of civil liability arising out of quantitative and qualitative research fraud in academic publishing.
MartinA., The elephant in the lab: How much science is fabricated? (26 Sep. 2015). Available from: http://www.alphr.com/science/1001618/the-elephant-in-the-lab-how-much-science-is-fabricated.
2.
FanelliD., How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data, PLoS ONE4(5) (2009), doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
3.
WagerL., Why we need a journal on research integrity and peer review (28 Sep. 2015). Available from: http://blogs.bio- medcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/09/28/journal-research- integrity-peer-review/.
4.
KlinefeldtN., Former Iowa State Researcher Appears in U.S. District Court (1 July 2014). Available from: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdia/pr/former-iowa-state-researcher-appears-us-district-court.
5.
ReardonS., Uneven response to scientific fraud, Nature523 (2015), 138-139.
6.
Ultramares Corp v Touche, 255 N.Y. 170 (1931) (Cardozo, J.).
7.
SolomonK.I., Ultramares revisited: A modern study of accountants' liability to the public, DePaul Law Review18(1) (1968), 56-100.
8.
BaierE. and DuprazL., Individual and institutional liability of researchers in the case of scientific fraud: Values and ethics, Higher Education Management & Policy19(3) (2007), 1-15.
9.
MervisJ., After the fall, Science354 (28 Oct 2016), 408-411.
10.
VauxD., Scientific misconduct: Falsification, fabrication, and misappropriation of credit, in: Handbook of Academic Integrity, BretagT., ed., Springer, 2016.
11.
KeetonW.P., Fraud: The necessity for an intent to deceive, UCLA Law Review5(4) (1958), 583-603.
12.
KoczelaS., FurlongC., McCarthyJ. and MushtaqA., Curbstoning and beyond: Confronting data fabrication in survey research, Statistical Journal of the IOAS31 (2015), 413-422.
13.
LaCourM. and GreenD., When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality, Science346 (12 Dec 2014), 1366-1369.
14.
McNuttM., Retraction of LaCour and Green [12], Science348 (5 June 2015), 1100.
15.
GoffmanA., On the Run: Fugitive Life in An American City, University of Chicago Press, 2014.
16.
BrookmanD., KallaJ., and AronowP., Irregularities in LaCour (19 May 2015). Available from: http://stanford.edu/∼ dbroock/broockman_kalla_aronow_lg_irregularities.pdf.
17.
SingalJ., The case of the amazing gay-marriage data: How a graduate student reluctantly uncovered a huge scientific fraud (29 May 2015). Available from: http://nymag.com/scienceo fus/2015/05/how-a-grad-student-uncovered-a-huge-fraud. html.
18.
KotlowitzA., Deep cover: Alice Goffman's ``On the Run,'' NY Times Sunday Book Review (29 Jun 2014). Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/books/review/alice-goffmans-on-the-run.html?_r=0.
19.
LubetS., Ethics on the Run (26 May 2015). Available from: http://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/law/ethics-on- the-run.
20.
MacDonald EggersP., Deceit: The Lie of the Law, Routledge, 2009.
21.
The Restatement (Second) of Torts, 162. American Law Institute, 1977.
22.
ShellG.R., When Is It Legal to Lie in Negotiations? Sloan Management Review32(3) (15 Apr 1991), 93-101.
23.
Guerra-PujolF.E., Research Fraud as Tort, Science349 (25 Sep 2015), 1459-1460.
24.
WillistonS., Liability for honest misrepresentation, Harvard Law Review24(6) (1911), 415-440.
25.
CavicoF., Fraudulent, negligent, and innocent misrepresentation in the employment context: The deceitful, careless, and thoughtless employer, Campbell Law Review20 (1997), 1-89.
26.
LordR., Some thoughts about warranty law: Express and implied warranties, North Dakota Law Review56 (1980), 509-700.
27.
ChapmanK. and MeurerM., Efficient remedies for breach of warranty, Law and Contemporary Problems52(1) (1989), 107-131.
28.
McGuiganG. and RussellR., The business of academic publishing: A strategic analysis of the academic journal publishing industry and its impact on the future of scholarly publishing, Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship9(3) (2008). Available from: http://southernlibrarian- ship.icaap.org/content/v09n03/mcguigan_g01.html.
29.
MervisJ., After the fall, Science354 (2016), 408-411.
30.
ShavellS., The judgment proof problem, International Review of Law and Economics6 (1986), 45-58.
31.
CalabresiG., The Costs of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis, Yale University Press, 1970.
32.
The Restatement (Third) of the Law of Agency, 7.01. American Law Institute, 2006.
33.
ResnikD., The Ethics of Science: An Introduction, Routledge, 2005.
34.
BeallJ., Predatory publishers are corrupting open access, Nature489 (13 Sep 2012), 179.
35.
BeallJ., Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access, Learned Publishing26(2) (2013), 79-84.
36.
BohannonJ., Who's afraid of peer review? A spoof paper concocted by science reveals little or no scrutiny at many open-access journals, Science343 (4 Oct 2013), 60-65.
37.
HaugC., The downside of open-access publishing, New England Journal of Medicine368(9) (2013), 791-793.
38.
BullochS., Fraud liability under agency principles: A new approach, William & Mary Law Review27(2) (1986), 301-330.
39.
HolmesO.W., The path of the law, Harvard Law Review10(8) (1897), 457-478.
40.
CoaseR., The market for goods and the market for ideas, American Economic Review64(2) (1974), 384-391.
