Deconstructing academic fraud

In 2011, Diederik Stapel was a psychologist at Tilburg University in the Netherlands at the pinnacle of his academic career. He was dean of the university’s School of Social and Behavioral Sciences and had a prestigious reputation in academic circles. But that same year, Stapel came under suspicion for fraud, unleashing a chain of events that led to his dismissal after an investigation concluded he’d falsified 55 of his publications and 10 Ph.D. dissertations written by his students.

Subsequently, Stapel freely admitted that ambition and a desire for the limelight had driven him to fake data and fabricate studies that never took place. The former professor avoided criminal punishment by reaching a deal with Dutch prosecutors to complete 120 hours of community service and forgo disability and illness benefits that would’ve been part of his salary. His reputation as a serious academic was shattered. (See “The Mind of a Con Man,” by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, The New York Times Magazine, April 26, 2013; “Diederik Stapel settles with Dutch prosecutors, won’t face jail time,” by Ivan Oransky, Retraction Watch, June 28, 2013; and “Fabrication: The Diederik Stapel case,” by Elisabeth Bik, Science Integrity Digest, July 16, 2019.)

Stapel’s case isn’t an isolated example. In 2013, for example, biomedical researcher Dong-Pyou Han was forced to resign from Iowa State for fabricating and falsifying data in HIV vaccine experiments funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Initially the U.S. Office of Research Integrity banned Han from receiving federal grants for three years, but a federal prosecutor went further and filed criminal charges. In February 2015, Han pleaded guilty to two felony charges of making false statements to obtain NIH grants and later received a 57-month prison sentence. (See “Korean prosecutors seek jail time for professors in massive plagiarism scheme,” by Mark Zastrow, Retraction Watch, Dec. 23, 2015.)

And more recently, so-called data sleuths Elisabeth Bik and Sholto David, microbiologists who blog about scientific integrity, said they found evidence of data falsification in scientific studies at two Havard affiliate institutions, leading to retractions and corrections in academic journals. (See “Harvard Professor’s Papers Contain Copied Images, Says Science Sleuth,” by Nidhi Subbaraman, The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 1, 2024; “US vaccine researcher sentenced to prison for fraud,” by Sara Reardon, Nature, July 1, 2015; and “Dana-Farber to Retract 6 Papers, Correct 31 Following Data Manipulation Claims,” by Veronica H. Paulus and Akshaya Ravi, The Harvard Crimson, Jan. 22, 2024.)

No industry, even those the public tends to believe are more trustworthy and ethical than others, is immune to fraud. And higher education is no exception. The research and academic world might seem prestigious and scientifically sound, as it contains groups of highly educated and intellectually curious people collaborating to advance the quality of knowledge and improve lives. But like other professions, academics are subject to pressures and temptations that can tip them into fraudulent territory. Maintaining a decent job can require the ability to get published frequently, often in prestigious journals. “Publish or perish” is a refrain that rings true throughout academia.

[See “The dangers of ‘publish or perish’” at the end of this article.]

And where there’s money, fraudsters gather. Not only are there generous grants to be had, but higher education is also extremely profitable. (See accompanying sidebar, “Grant fraud” below.) Internationally, millions of students enroll in universities each year, generating billions of dollars. According to a report conducted by Verified Market Research, the U.S. higher education system was valued at $477.12 billion in 2022. (See “U.S. Higher Education Market Size By Type, By Mode, By Institution, Private, And Forecast,” Verified Market Research, February 2024.) That same year, research conducted by the London School of Economics determined that the direct, indirect and induced economic impact of higher education on the U.K. economy was approximately 115.7 billion pounds. (Induced economic impact refers to the results of increased personal income caused by indirect and direct effects on the economy.) [See “The impact of the higher education sector on the UK economy,” Summary Report for Universities UK, August 2023.] It’s not unusual for institutions to have operating budgets in the billions of dollars. In many regions, larger educational systems have proportionately larger operating budgets, such as the University of California system with its budget of $47 billion. (See “Budget for Current Operations,” University of California, 2023-24.) The massive amount of money in higher education can be a lure to those wanting to take advantage of a financial opportunity.

With help from Certified Fraud Examiners (CFEs) and other experts, we’ll show how the higher educational environment contributes to fraudulent actions, use theoretical perspectives to explain why misconduct and fraud happen, and discuss how they can be prevented.

[See “Grant fraud” at the end of this article.] 

Research misconduct

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is considered to be the U.S. governmental entity that guides policies regarding research misconduct for all government agencies. According to the ORI, research misconduct is “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” The ORI notes that this excludes anything found to be an honest error or the result of differences in opinion. (See “ Definition of Research Misconduct,” The Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.)

Like other professions, academics are subject to pressures and temptations that can tip them into fraudulent territory.

While we refer to U.S. standards and definitions in this section, research misconduct is an international phenomenon, and some cultures or regions might be more susceptible to research misconduct than others. According to a 2017 story from Science magazine and Retraction Watch, some countries offer financial incentives to individuals who are published in high-quality journals. The financial incentives can motivate individuals to forego quality research in favor of manuscripts that are likely to be accepted for publication and published quickly. The report cites that authors from China who publish in top-tier American journals might earn a bonus as high as $165,000. The report also cites similar policies at Qatar University and the Miller College of Business at Ball State University in Indiana. (See “Cash bonuses for peer-reviewed papers go global,” by Alison Abritis and Alison McCook, Science, Aug. 10, 2017.)

To help monitor potential research misconduct, many institutions have departments dedicated to preventing and investigating issues of fraud, waste and abuse. Julia Behnfeldt, Ph.D., associate director and research integrity officer at The Ohio State University’s Office of Research, described her role to Fraud Magazine. “As a research integrity officer, I assess research misconduct allegations, specifically falsification, fabrication or plagiarism in research and ensure that university policy and process is followed for the full review,” says Behnfeldt. “This starts with determining if an allegation is specific and credible during the initial assessment phase or if it has substance during the inquiry phase.” According to Behnfeldt, if the allegation is credible, a full investigation is launched to determine if misconduct occurred and who was responsible for the misconduct, and to recommend sanctions or actions to correct the research record. If the questioned data was funded by a federal sponsor, she reports any case outcomes to the agency.

When investigating this type of fraud, CFEs should know three facets of research misconduct: fabrication, falsification and plagiarism.

Fabrication. According to the ORI, “fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.” This may involve academics creating data for experiments that were never conducted. Or they may only fabricate a portion of the data.

Falsification. The ORI defines falsification as “manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.” A researcher might falsify data by removing data points to achieve specific statistical results. Researchers might also engage in cherry picking. In other words, they select only the data that fits their hypothesis or ignore the fact that they have inadequate data to achieve their desired results. (See “cherry-pick,” Dictionary.com.) Falsification involves manipulating data that’s been collected, whereas fabrication is creating data that was never collected. Both acts can happen simultaneously.

Plagiarism. According to the ORI, “plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.” Turnitin, a company that promotes academic integrity, has developed a tool called Plagiarism Spectrum that identifies the many types of plagiarism. (See “The Plagiarism Spectrum,” Turnitin.) Academics can avoid committing plagiarism by consistently and accurately citing any outside sources, properly using quotation marks, and paraphrasing rather than using direct quotations. But a lack of knowledge of these concepts can lead to unintentional plagiarism. Conversely, when authors intentionally copy the contents of other writing, this intentional plagiarism is an example of research misconduct.

Plagiarism is relative, with individuals perceiving a difference in the severity of violations. Acceptance of plagiarism varies culturally. Some cultures view plagiarism as an homage to the original authors and, therefore, a sign of respect, says Ken Dieffenbach, CFE, CCEP, deputy assistant inspector general for investigations at the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Inspector General. Indeed, research has shown that so-called collectivist cultures such as Japan, South Korea and China see ideas as shared rather than attributed to a particular individual, complicating the definition of plagiarism. (See “Cultural Differences in Plagiarism,” by Audrey Campbell, Turnitin, Dec. 20, 2017.)

Theoretical perspective – the Fraud Triangle

Carolyn Conn, Ph.D., CFE, is a clinical associate professor of accounting at Texas State University. She explains how the three cornerstones of the Fraud Triangle — pressure (unshareable financial need), opportunity and rationalization — are also relevant in the academic world.

Pressure/motivation. Pressure comes from many sources in academia. “Regarding motive, I tell my students, ‘Be careful how you incentivize people’,” says Conn. “If achieving a certain goal means more money in their pocket, some people will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal.” At some universities, motivation comes in the form of “publish or perish.” Metrics may be set for a certain number of publications within a specified time frame. The financial cost of earning graduate degrees can heighten the motivation to be promoted, regardless of how the promotion is achieved. (See accompanying sidebar, “The dangers of ‘publish or perish’” above.)

Opportunity. Conn further elaborates on the fraud opportunities academics are given. “Opportunity for academic fraud exists because there isn’t as much oversight and review of research experiments, data collection and analysis, and articles submitted for publication,” says Conn. “There are tens of thousands of legitimate, quality journals and their editorial boards and reviewers cannot keep up with the number of submissions with the latter driven by the pressure for faculty to publish. Faculty may commit academic fraud because they know they can likely get away with it ... analogous to a business with few internal controls.”

Rationalization. The final leg of the Fraud Triangle regards the thought processes. “Rationalization for academic fraud can take many forms, some of which might be everybody is doing it,” says Conn. “Also, there may not be much ‘deterrence effect’ if the would-be fraudster knows of other academician(s) who falsified research data and got away with it. Some academic fraud cases have been highly publicized in national and international news, with little punishment for the perpetrator. Cost/benefit could indicate there’s little risk and much to gain from publishing fraudulent research.”

Consequences of academic fraud

Article retraction is a consequence of any form of research misconduct. Retracted articles are those that were once published but then “unpublished” because of various issues, including fabrication, falsification or plagiarism. A study of the trends in article retraction by Isabel Campos-Varela and Alberto Ruano-Raviña found 1,082 publications that were retracted between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2016, and determined that the retraction rate was 2.5 per 10,000 publications. Misconduct was the main cause of retraction due to plagiarism, data management and compromise of the review process. Iran had the most retracted publications, followed by Egypt and China. (See “Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors,” SciELO, 2019.)

Individuals who engage in research misconduct or grant fraud may also be formally sanctioned in some way. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity tracks administrative actions that result from its investigated cases. For 2022, the most common outcomes of punishment for closed cases were debarment (two cases), prohibition from Public Health Service advisory service (eight cases), supervision plan required (eight cases) and certification required (eight cases). In this sample of closed cases, four publications were retracted or had corrections requested. (See “Annual Report FY 2022.”)

The NSF OIG analyzed plagiarism cases that closed during fiscal years 2007-2017 and listed the consequences for 137 researchers who NSF determined were guilty of research misconduct. Nearly all the individuals received a letter of reprimand and were required to complete additional ethics training. Additionally, 93% of individuals were required to provide a certification that their materials weren’t falsified, fabricated or plagiarized; 72% were required to provide this same assurance from their employers; 48% were prohibited to serve as a reviewer or consultant to the NSF; and 18% were debarred from participating in federal programs. (See “Observations from NSF Plagiarism Investigations and Strategies to Prevent Plagiarism,” National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General, March 4, 2022.)

Dieffenbach reports similar outcomes from across the federal OIG community and notes that what he often sees are administrative remedies and/or civil actions instead of criminal ones. Individuals are required to retract their papers, are required to apologize or undergo ethics remediation, and are sometimes debarred from receiving future federal refunding. Civil actions typically include settlements requiring certain corrective actions, a corporate integrity agreement, restitution and/or a monetary penalty. Criminal prosecutions of research misconduct require clear evidence of intent, not just mistakes or negligence. While rare, there are some documented cases of research misconduct being treated as a criminal violation. (See the example of Dong-Pyou Han in the introductory cases above.)

Termination is a possible outcome of any facet of academic fraud, although it’s uncertain how often this occurs. Individuals may be terminated for any of these actions, but unless it’s reported by a government agency, institutional press release, etc., there’s no way to quantify termination rates. It’s likely that termination is an outcome only in the most egregious or high-profile cases.

Consequences of differential reinforcement in academic fraud

The concept of criminal deterrence is theoretically simple: To discourage criminal behaviors, you must make the punishment of being caught sufficiently harsh so the would-be criminal decides they’re not willing to risk committing the crime because they don’t want the punishment. Deterrence theory has three components: severity, celerity (swiftness) and certainty. According to the theory, deterrence is optimized when punishments are severe, administered soon after the violation and have a high certainty of being detected and punished.

Deterring the various forms of academic fraud is difficult mainly because punishment typically violates at least one, if not all three, components of deterrence theory. Insufficient punishment is probably not news to many of our readers who can frequently cite a lack of meaningful punishment for fraudsters. Similarly, academics rarely get terminated for their misdeeds and are likely not punished in lesser ways. Even in severe cases, the protections of tenure for faculty make it difficult to terminate anyone except under extreme circumstances. The case examples in this article show some of the more severe punishments, but these are far less common.

The lack of appropriate deterrence may lead to more crime, a concept called differential reinforcement. According to C.R. Jeffery in his article in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, differential reinforcement happens when “a criminal act occurs in an environment in which in the past the actor has been reinforced for behaving in this manner, and the aversive consequences attached to the behavior have been of such a nature that they do not control or prevent the response” (p. 295). From a differential reinforcement perspective, individuals whose crimes haven’t been detected or who haven’t been punished will likely continue them. In the case of misconduct, for example, an individual who can falsify one research finding without being detected or receiving sufficient punishment will likely continue to falsify findings. The falsification behavior has been reinforced because it hasn’t been adequately punished. (See “Criminal Behavior and Learning Theory,” by C. R. Jeffery, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1965.)

The NSF OIG report supports the idea of repeat offending among academic fraudsters. The report found that 55% of the individuals investigated for research misconduct committed plagiarism in more than one NSF proposal. Five individuals were already under investigation for plagiarism when they committed another suspected incident. The report noted that 37% of the sample committed other acts beyond plagiarism, including “data falsification, merit review violations, inappropriate use of NSF funds, and evidence fabrication” (p. 7). Note that these findings are only from NSF OIG cases that closed during fiscal years 2007-2017. It’s unknown how many of these individuals may have committed similar acts outside this time frame or when working with other organizations. (See “Observations from NSF Plagiarism Investigations and Strategies to Prevent Plagiarism,” National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General, March 4, 2022.)

Changing the future of academic fraud

The Fraud Triangle and differential reinforcement theories imply crime prevention techniques that can be used to combat any form of academic fraud. To increase the likelihood of deterrence, all situations of academic fraud should be punished in a way that is severe, swift and certain. Civil and/or criminal prosecutions should be considered, especially when a violation involves grant funding.

A recent surge of public interest in academic fraud might be an early signal to indicate a change in academic culture to discourage fraud. Data sleuths like Leif Nelson, Uri Simonsohn and Joe Simmons (creators of the fraudulent data report blog Data Colada) and Elisabeth Bik, who’s gained renown for fabricated image spotting, are fighting to make that change. (See “The Band of Debunkers Busting Bad Scientists,” by Nidhi Subbaraman, The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 24, 2023 and “How to catch a scientific fraud,” by Byrd Pinkerton, Vox, Nov. 8, 2023.) Though receiving backlash for blowing the whistle on high-profile cases, their efforts to make the research culture more accurate and honest have been highly supported by some.

I often remind myself that a vast majority of researchers, even working within this incentive system, do not engage in misconduct. Their belief in the principles and values of research — like trust, accuracy, transparency and integrity — outweighs any pressure to generate fraudulent data.

In a Freakonomics podcast episode, Brian Nosek, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia, explains the new culture for journal publication in the Registered Report model, which is a system that allows academics to submit their research process and investigative questions rather than focusing only on results. “The key part is that the reward, me getting that publication, is based on you agreeing that I’m asking an important question and I’ve designed an effective method to test it,” says Nosek. “It’s no longer about the results. None of us know what the results are.” (See “Can Academic Fraud Be Stopped?” by Stephen J. Dubner, Freakonomics, Jan. 17, 2024.)

Simine Vazire, a psychology professor at the University of Melbourne, also emphasizes the need to incentivize more accurate and calibrated claims in research and less hype and exaggeration. “It would be a bad thing to approach journal editing by saying we’re only going to publish true things or things that we’re 100% sure are true,” says Vazire. “The important thing is that the things that are more likely to be wrong are presented in a more uncertain way.” (See “Can Academic Fraud Be Stopped?”.)

Institutional offices of research integrity offer both a hope for change and an assurance of investigation into research misconduct. “Researchers work within a system based on the idea of ‘publish or perish’ where they may feel high pressure to produce impactful research on a regular basis or face career consequences,” says Behnfeldt. “I often remind myself that a vast majority of researchers, even working within this incentive system, do not engage in misconduct. Their belief in the principles and values of research — like trust, accuracy, transparency and integrity — outweighs any pressure to generate fraudulent data. Personally, I do believe reworking this rewards system would be beneficial in reducing misconduct, but it is no small feat.”

Since Science magazine published the 2017 article about bonuses for Chinese publications, policies regarding incentives have changed. In November 2020, Sonia Qingyang Li of the Lise Meitner Research Group wrote that China has banned cash rewards for publishing papers to encourage more high-impact research rather than a greater quantity of lower-quality research. They believe the existing policies have led to plagiarism, “redundant self-citing,” and research on popular and attention-getting topics rather than lesser-known issues. The hope is that change in policies will reduce the pressure to cut corners to gain publications. (See “The End of Publish or Perish? China’s New Policy on Research Evaluation,” by Sonia Qingyang Li, Lise Meitner Research Group, Nov. 19, 2020.)

The culture of academia emphasizes publications, credentials and grant funding. This emphasis can lead to individuals taking advantage of the many unethical or criminal opportunities. While there’s no way to gauge how much fraud is present in academia, examining the issues of research misconduct, falsified credentials and grant fraud can add knowledge about these areas. By raising awareness, there’s the potential for those involved in academia to make changes to lessen the appeal of committing misconduct, punish transgressions more harshly and make overall improvements that benefit all involved in academia.

Emily Homer, Ph.D., CFE, is a research specialist at the ACFE. Contact her at EHomer@ACFE.com.

Anna Brahce is the editorial assistant at Fraud Magazine. Contact her at ABrahce@ACFE.com.

The authors would like to thank Ken Dieffenbach, CFE, CCEP; Aliza I. Sacknovitz, Ph.D., CFE; Carolyn Conn, Ph.D., CFE; and Julia Behnfeldt, Ph.D., for their valuable contributions to this article.

This article was updated from the original print version on June 11, 2024.

Additional references and resources

1. “Why Is There So Much Fraud in Academia?” Freakonomics, by Stephen J. Dubner, Episode 572, Jan. 10, 2024.
2. “Predatory publishing: Rise of scholastic and academic fraud,” by Donn LeVie, Jr., CFE, Fraud Magazine, January/February 2020.
3. “School Lunches, P-Hacking and the Original ‘Pizzagate’,” Maintenance Phase, July 20, 2021.
4. “Collegiate online cheating, a predictable result of COVID-19, may threaten the workplace,” by Carolyn Conn, Ph.D., CFE, CPA; and Zachary M. Kelley, Fraud Magazine, September/October 2021.
5. “Academic Fraud and the World’s Largest Diploma Mill,” by Allen Ezell, AACRAO, 2019.
6. “All About Grants,” Podcast - Research Misconduct, National Institutes of Health.
7. “Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers,” Retraction Watch.
8. “Annual Report FY 2022,” The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity (ORI).

[See “Falsified credentials” at the end of this article.]

The dangers of ‘publish or perish’

A concept often associated with academia is the phrase publish or perish: the concept that academics must conduct research, and subsequently publish their research results, or they will lose their jobs. It’s often used somewhat casually, if not sarcastically, to describe the academic research process. However, publish or perish is not a myth, nor is it an exaggeration. Publishing is a requirement of nearly every academic job, though the specific requirements vary widely. The expectation for research on publishing is on the mind of every academic.

Origins of publish or perish

In his article in The Scientist, Eugene Garfield describes his difficulty tracing the origin of the term publish or perish. One source is a letter from “media-and-society scholar” Marshall McLuhan to poet Ezra Pound on June 22, 1951. An earlier mention is in “The Academic Man: A Study in the Sociology of a Profession,” a book written in 1942 by Logan Wilson. In his book, Wilson wrote that “situational imperatives dictate a ‘publish or perish’ credo within the ranks” of academics (p. 197).

As an academic, it’s not enough to just conduct research; this research must be shared with the academy, practitioners, and/or the public. Publishing in some facet is a professional commitment to advancing the discipline and sharing knowledge for public use. As Wilson wrote, “There is the necessity for bringing results to light in the form of publication, for in the academic scheme of things, results unpublished are little better than those never achieved” (p. 197).

[See “What Is The Primordial Reference For The Phrase 'Publish Or Perish'?” by Eugene Garfield, The Scientist, June 9, 1996.)

The emphasis on research and publishing, versus teaching or service (the other typical components of academic jobs), varies greatly based on the specific individual’s position, department, and university, among other factors. Institutions and departments that engage in more research typically have higher expectations for the number and types of research projects and publications. Institutions that focus on teaching typically have much lower research and publication requirements. Regardless of the type of institution, requirements might include a minimum number of publications or projects and/or a minimum quality of publications.

Along with teaching and service, every institution considers an instructor’s research productivity in the evaluation, promotion and tenure processes. Tenure, according to the American Association of University Professors, is “an indefinite appointment that can be terminated only for cause or under extraordinary circumstances such as financial exigency and program discontinuation.” Earning tenure is a goal for many academics because it comes with a high degree of academic freedom, increased pay, and a (likely) permanent position. Without research dissemination, it’s nearly impossible to gain tenure at any institution. (See “Tenure,” Resources, American Association of University Professors.)

There are numerous ways of disseminating research. For example, individuals can write technical reports or manuals (sometimes called white papers since they’re unpublished) and magazine, newsletter and newspaper articles. Podcasts and blogs have also become popular ways of sharing research, which also increases the accessibility of information. Many disciplines offer the opportunity to share research at institutional, local, national and international conferences.

The peer-reviewed publishing process

Despite the prevalence of these methods, they typically don’t meet institutions’ publishing requirements. The gold standard in disseminating research is publishing a peer-reviewed journal article. According to the National Library of Medicine, “Peer-reviewed journal articles have gone through an evaluation process in which journal editors and other expert scholars critically assess the quality and scientific merit of the article and its research.” These other expert scholars, typically referred to as peer reviewers or just reviewers, are fellow academics in similar fields who volunteer their time to review manuscripts for publication, often anonymously. (See “Peer-Reviewed Literature,” Health Data Sources, National Library of Medicine.)

The process of publishing a peer-reviewed journal article is straightforward on its face: an author writes a manuscript with the intent to publish it. The author then sends the manuscript to a prospective journal, whose editors and reviewers analyze the manuscript to determine if it is suitable for publication. They then notify the author of the decision. The author may decide to move forward with the publishing process for that journal, or they may seek publication with another journal, depending upon the information provided by the journal editors and reviewers. During the manuscript review process, the author must promise that their research is valid and accurate, must report any funding received or conflicts of interest, and typically must attest that the manuscript is only being considered for publication at one journal.

However, the process is not nearly that simplified. After the manuscript is written, the author must select a journal. There is no way to gauge how many academic journals exist, but most sources estimate 30,000-40,000. An author should pick a suitable journal based on the manuscript’s topic (for example, a biologist would not likely find success publishing in a journal on accounting), which dramatically drops the number of potential journals. However, the manuscript authors still have a difficult decision to make when selecting a journal and can make the decision based on a number of factors.

Journals are “tiered” in terms of prestige based on the rigor of review, acceptance rate, amount of readership, etc. Publications in top tiers are generally given more weight when considering tenure and promotion than lower tier publications. Journals are ranked both overall and separately by discipline. The journal rankings and metrics are publicly available using sources like Google Scholar and Australian Business Deans Council.

The emphasis to publish in highly ranked peer-reviewed journals typically results in academics seeking the highest-ranking journal they believe suits their manuscript. Sometimes academics aim for a top-tier journal even if they believe their article isn’t likely to be accepted. If the article is rejected, they’ll submit the manuscript to other top-tier journals, decreasing in ranking, until it’s accepted. This is a concept sometimes referred to as journal-tiering. While this practice extends the publishing process, some academics who are more concerned about journal quality than number of publications might use this process to get publications in the highest-ranked journals possible. In the academic community, this practice isn’t considered unusual or deceitful.

Scholars in disciplines such as biology, chemistry and psychology who often need to conduct in-depth, technical or experimental research tend to have fewer publications (or more publications based on fewer research studies). Their data collection takes longer, and consequently the production of their publications also takes longer. It’s not unusual to see academics who’ve recently completed these types of research projects submit multiple articles out of the same project to make up for not being able to produce manuscripts while the research was ongoing.

These types of research are much different than social sciences, which often conduct statistical analyses using existing data rather than collecting their own primary data (yes, conducting research using a secondary analysis of existing data is a legitimate and legal process). Conducting analyses of existing data is often done to save the time and cost associated with collecting primary data.

The effects of publish or perish

The publication requirement of any academic job creates stress and tension for all academics. (See our “Theoretical perspective – The Fraud Triangle” section in the main article.) Academics worry about others publishing articles that make their own research redundant, or worse, contradict their findings. They worry about others stealing their ideas, something that has been an unfortunate part of the history of academia. They worry about investing potentially thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours into a research project that does not result in the anticipated findings. Research studies that result in no statistically significant findings are typically not accepted for publication — a concept referred to as publication bias which results in quality research not reaching audiences.

Beyond the pressure to publish to keep your job, there’s a pressure to publish more often or in higher-tier journals so your work reaches more people and is cited by others. Some scholars seek (and receive) respect, awards, recognition and prestige based on their publications. Making research publicly available and accessible can open doors to job and funding opportunities, research collaborations, additional work, etc.

The pressure to publish might lead to authors taking shortcuts, such as submitting the article to more than one journal at a time (a big no-no in the publishing world), rushing the research and data analyses processes to gain faster publication, paying bribes to have articles accepted for publication, or, more extremely, falsifying research findings to increase the likelihood of article acceptance. (See our “Research misconduct” section in the main article.) Even in Wilson’s text from 1942, he acknowledged that “the main strain in the instructorship seems to be the uncertain criteria for advancement.”

The concept of publish or perish isn’t going away. Publishing is how research is shared and knowledge is gained. What needs to change is increasing the internal support within institutions to assist scholars in their research efforts, whether it be financial, personal or professional. Making publishing expectations for tenure and promotion clear and communicating the requirements through regular (formal or informal) evaluations can help researchers better plan their research projects and meet their research goals. Making resources available to promote and encourage research production and integrity can also help. Some possibilities include departmental or interdisciplinary writing groups, grant-writing or publishing workshops, and interdisciplinary networking events to promote research collaborations. Equipping all researchers with resources and skills they need to understand and succeed in the publication process can help cut down on the pressure academics feel to publish and subsequently, the temptation to publish illegitimately so they don’t perish.

Emily Homer, Ph.D., CFE, is a research specialist at the ACFE. Contact her at EHomer@ACFE.com.

Grant fraud

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a grant is a “financial assistance mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity.” (See “Grant,” Grants & Funding, NIH Central Resource for Grants and Funding Information.) In research both inside and outside of academia, the ability to secure grant funding to support research is encouraged and sometimes required. The process of applying and completing a grant offers many opportunities for misconduct or fraud. Here’s an overview of the grant process.

In short, the grant application and approval process works as follows:

1. An agency that would like research conducted generates a call for proposals describing the topic and parameters that need to be met by a prospective researcher to conduct the research. The agency specifically sets out a maximum amount of funding that researchers can request as part of their proposal.
2. Researchers review the call for proposals and determine their ability to conduct research that meets the agency’s needs.
3. If a researcher determines they would like to apply for the opportunity, they complete a detailed application specifying how they propose to conduct the research to meet the agency’s research needs. Applications include information regarding research personnel, letters of support for the researcher or their proposed project, specifics about how they propose to conduct the research, and a detailed budget of funding required and how it will be used.
4. The agency reviews the proposals considering the ability of the research to generate the information they need, the applicants’ ability to conduct the proposed research, and the agency’s budget. If the agency finds a proposal that meets their needs, they notify the selected researcher. Once awarded, the proposed research is considered a grant.
5. The researcher conducts their proposed research, following their proposal as closely as possible.

Ken Dieffenbach, CFE, CCEP, is deputy assistant inspector general for investigations at the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Inspector General. He says grants are an “integrity-based” system: those who review grant applications for approval assume that researchers complete their proposals truthfully and that their content is valid. They also assume that those who have been awarded grants are being truthful in how they spend the research money and the results of the research. Dieffenbach noted that, as grant funders, they generally know very little about how the researchers are using the funding, or even if the proposed research is being conducted. “The crux of the compliance challenge is that we’re trusting people for what they are,” says Dieffenbach. “And there are dozens of things they’ve implicitly promised to do.”

Grant-funding agencies sometimes give millions of dollars in grants. They don’t have the ability to closely monitor all the grants they fund to make sure researchers are using the funding the way they proposed. The grant-funding process is complex, involving billions of dollars, hundreds of grants and many employees, but not necessarily enough employees to handle the number of grants that need monitoring.

Research misconduct can also occur in the grant-writing and applications areas, during which an applicant for a grant commits an action that involves fabrication, falsification or plagiarism. Aliza I. Sacknovitz, Ph.D., CFE, the deputy director of the Research Integrity and Administrative Investigations Division of the NSF OIG, mentioned that her department has seen “falsified letters of support, falsified Institutional Review Board approvals (for human-subjects research), and the ‘puffery’ of researchers’ publications and other accomplishments,” among many other forms of research misconduct. Dieffenbach says issues of intellectual property theft and industrial espionage sometimes also arise in grant-funding because a lot of the research is exploratory or innovative.

Sometimes offices investigating potential misconduct related to grant or research funding do not find cases of fraud, but rather cases of sloppy bookkeeping or poor record-keeping. Dieffenbach notes that when his office sees fraudulent activity, it usually takes the form of basic asset misappropriation: using grant money to pay for personal purchases, vendor fraud schemes, using incorrect pay rates or claiming unearned overtime.

Case studies in grant fraud

In June 2023, Shaorong Liu and Juan Lu at the University of Oklahoma were sentenced to more than three years in prison and ordered to pay $2.1 million in restitution for making false statements regarding a Department of Energy grant. They allegedly used grant money for personal expenses and lied about how they spent this money on documents to the Department. (See “University of Oklahoma Professor and Wife Sentenced to Prison for Federal Grant Fraud,” U.S. Attorney’s Office, June 29, 2023.)

In 2023, Xinjian “Kevin” He was indicted on two counts of federal program fraud for using grant money from West Virginia University to buy personal items. He fled the country but was arrested Sept. 26, 2023, when he tried to enter Canada. Federal court records reflect that, in January 2024, He agreed to plead guilty and is currently awaiting sentencing. He faces 10 years in prison if convicted. (See “WVU Professor Indicted For Fraud,” by Caroline MacGregor, WVPB, Oct. 23, 2023.)

Grant fraud is an international phenomenon too. As of November 2023, three universities in central and eastern Europe are being investigated by the European Public Prosecutor's Office for fraud allegations and misuse of EU funds by university staff. (See “European prosecutor’s office investigating three universities over alleged fraud,” by Thomas Brent, Science Business, Nov. 22, 2023.)

Falsified credentials

Academic fraud can also involve falsifying credentials, which typically falls into two forms: fabricating resume details and purchasing degrees from diploma and degree mills.

Fabricating resume details

Fabricating resume details is making misstatements on a document assumed to accurately reflect an individual’s experience and skills. Academic resumes are typically called curriculum vitae. These documents are intended to be a full chronology of career accomplishments, compared to resumes, which are typically encouraged to be summarized into a few pages. Since resumes and curriculum vitae are the primary tools used for hiring, awarding honors and promotions, and determining funding eligibility, their accuracy is important.

While it’s impossible to gauge the exact frequency of fabricated resume details, some surveys have provided estimates. The company Checkster conducted a research study of 400 individuals who had been searching for a job in the prior six months to gauge participants’ willingness to misrepresent themselves during the hiring process. Eighty percent of the sample stated they would make, or had made, a falsified claim at least once. Sixty percent would be willing to claim mastery of skills in which they had limited knowledge. Around 50% of the sample was willing to extend the time they worked for an employer, omit an employer entirely from their work history, or significantly inflate their role on an important project. Around 50% were also willing to overstate (or had overstated) their GPA by more than half a point (note that these survey participants come from a variety of industries, not just education). (See “Is Your Company Hiring Charlatans?” by Checkster.)

Diploma and degree mills

According to The Higher Education Opportunity Act, a diploma mill is an entity that: “i) offers, for a fee, degrees, diplomas, or certificates that may be used to represent to the general public that the individuals possessing such a degree, diploma, or certificate had completed a program of postsecondary education or training; and (ii) requires such individual to complete little or no education or coursework to obtain such degree, diploma, or certificate; and (B) lacks accreditation by an accrediting agency or association that is recognized as an accrediting agency or association of institutions of higher education.” (See “Higher Education Opportunity Act,” U.S. Government.)

In the first chapter of their book “Fake Degrees and Fraudulent Credentials in Higher Education,” Sarah Elaine Eaton and Jamie J. Carmichael report many ways that degrees are created. For example, fraudsters can obtain legitimate degrees printed on legitimate parchment and repurpose them with a different university or recipient’s name. These degrees can be obtained from online resellers such as eBay or from estate or garage sales. Forgers can create replicas of legitimate degrees from images found online, using parchment paper that may have been purchased online or from an individual working at a university or printer. (See “Fake Degrees and Fraudulent Credentials in Higher Education,” by Sarah Elaine Eaton and Jamie J. Carmichael, ResearchGate, January 2023.)

One of the nation’s leading experts in diploma and degree mills is Allen Ezell, Jr., who is a longtime CFE and retired FBI special agent experienced in white-collar crime investigations. Ezell notes that fraudulent documents have life cycles of 15 to 20 years. Based on his research, Ezell estimates that there are at least 5,000 diploma mills in operation, as well as 1,500 accreditation mills — fraudulent agencies created to provide accreditation to diploma mills to improve their apparent legitimacy. (See “Diploma Mills and Counterfeit Operations,” by Allen Ezell, Research in Brief.) The Get Educated website maintains an extensive list of degree mills, including details regarding each institution’s accreditation and specific states that have banned the institution's recognition as an educational institution. (See “Browse Our List of Degree Mills & Distance Learning Accreditation Reports,” Get Educated.)

Case studies in falsified credentials

Indigenous fraud has made recent headlines, in which people claim to have indigenous identity to take advantage of opportunities given to those of that heritage. In 2023, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, a former judge and professor at the University of British Columbia, was found to have misrepresented her identify claims. As a result, she returned some of her honorary degrees and withdrew her membership in the Order of Canada, a national group that recognizes individuals who’ve made exemplary contributions to society. (See “What are ‘pretendians’ and how are they causing ‘severe harm’ to Indigenous communities?” by Haley Lewis, Global News, March 9, 2023 and “Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond dropped from the Order of Canada,” by Elizabeth Thompson, CBC News, Nov. 3, 2023.)

Degree mills remain popular as well. An investigation by Marketplace revealed that Axact, an IT firm based in Pakistan, ran the world’s largest diploma mill where over 800 Canadians (and thousands of others worldwide) may have purchased fake degrees. Axact sold bachelor’s and master’s degrees from universities that appeared legitimate for just a few hundred dollars. The Pakistani government shut down Axact in 2015 and arrested multiple individuals. In 2017, Umair Hamid, Axact’s former assistant vice president of international relations, pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York. He was sentenced to 21 months in prison and a $5,303,020 forfeiture for his part in the scheme. (See “‘All of us can be harmed’: Investigation reveals hundreds of Canadians have phoney degrees,” by Eric Szeto and Nelisha Vellani, CBC News, updated Sept. 14, 2017 and “Pakistani Man Sentenced To 21 Months In Prison In Axact Diploma Mill Scam,” U.S. Attorney’s Office, Aug. 28, 2017.)