Fraudulent academic activities that I have referred to as “felonies” comprise fabrication (defined by the US Office of Research Integrity as “making up data or results and recording or reporting them”), falsification (“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”), and plagiarism (“the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit”). Many cases of fabrication and falsification reported in the 1970s increasingly drew attention to this, and none was perhaps more frequently referred to and discussed than the Darsee Affair, which involved extensive fabrication and falsification of research data by John R Darsee, working in Eugene Braunwald’s laboratory in Boston. Several of Darsee’s papers were subsequently retracted, but they continue to be cited as if they had not. I have previously suggested that the three components of what is generally referred to as “research misconduct” should be regarded as academic felonies and that the components of what are generally referred to as “questionable research practices” should be regarded as academic misdemeanours.1 I have suggested this because the more usual terms are rather mild in the degree of censure that they imply. The legal terms “felonies” and “misdemeanours” carry more weight, implying a greater degree of condemnation. Under the heading of felonies are grouped fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results, as defined by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI),2 which has also defined them individually as follows: Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them. Falsification: 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. Plagiarism: The appropriation …

中文翻译：

---

当我使用一个词时......学术造假 — Darsee 事件


我所说的欺诈性学术活动包括捏造（美国研究诚信办公室将其定义为“编造数据或结果并记录或报告”）、伪造（“操纵研究材料、设备或流程，或更改或遗漏数据或结果，使研究无法在研究记录中准确表示”）， 和剽窃（“挪用他人的想法、过程、结果或文字，而不给予适当的荣誉”）。1970 年代报道的许多捏造和伪造案件越来越多地引起了人们对此的关注，而可能没有比达西事件更频繁地被提及和讨论的了，该事件涉及在波士顿尤金·布劳瓦尔德 （Eugene Braunwald） 实验室工作的约翰·达西 （John R Darsee） 对研究数据进行大量伪造和伪造。Darsee 的几篇论文随后被撤回，但它们继续被引用，就好像它们没有一样。我之前曾建议，通常被称为“研究不端行为”的三个组成部分应被视为学术重罪，而通常被称为“可疑的研究实践”的组成部分应被视为学术不端。我之所以提出这个建议，是因为更常见的术语在它们所暗示的谴责程度上相当温和。法律术语“重罪”和“轻罪”具有更大的分量，意味着更大程度的谴责。 在重罪的标题下，在提议、执行或审查研究，或报告研究结果时，将捏造、伪造和剽窃归为一组，如美国研究诚信办公室 （ORI） 2 所定义，该办公室也对它们进行了单独定义，如下所示：捏造：编造数据或结果并记录或报告它们。伪造： 操纵研究材料、设备或流程，或更改或遗漏数据或结果，以致研究记录中无法准确表示研究。剽窃：挪用......