capabilities and procedures. Because of the huge quantities of data generated by digital technologies, an increasing fraction of the processing and communication of data is done by computers, sometimes with relatively little human oversight. If this processing is flawed or misunderstood, the conclusions can be erroneous. Documenting work flows, instruments, procedures, and measurements so that others can fully understand the context of data is a vital task, but this can be difficult and time-consuming. Furthermore, digital technologies can tempt those who are unaware of or dismissive of accepted practices in a particular research field to manipulate data inappropriately.

Several recent incidents and trends provided an impetus for this study, such as the challenge journals face in preventing inappropriate manipulation of digital images in submitted papers and well-publicized, albeit rare, cases of research misconduct involving fabricated or manipulated data. Assessing the broad set of institutions, policies, and practices that have been put into place to prevent and detect research misconduct, including the fabrication or inappropriate manipulation of data, was beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, the committee recognizes that the advance of digital technologies presents special challenges to the individuals and institutions charged with ensuring responsible conduct in research. Since these individuals and institutions will continue to play a critical role in ensuring the integrity of research data, it is important that they adapt their procedures in order to function effectively in the digital age.

The most effective method for ensuring the integrity of research data is to ensure high standards for openness and transparency. To the extent that data and other information integral to research results are provided to other experts, errors in data collection, analysis, and interpretation (intentional or unintentional) can be discovered and corrected. This requires that the methods and tools used to generate and manipulate the data be available to peers who have the background to understand that information.

The traditional way for submitting data and results to the scrutiny of other researchers is through peer review, which allows the validity of data and results to be judged for quality by a research community before dissemination. Although traditional peer review practices remain essential for evaluating the importance and validity of research, it has become clear that these have limitations when it comes to ensuring that digital data have been appropriately collected, analyzed, and interpreted. Fortunately, it has also become clear that the advance of digital technologies is providing new opportunities to ensure data integrity through greater openness and transparency. The emergence and growth of accessible databases such as GenBank and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey illustrate these opportunities in widely disparate disciplines.2 Yet in


Dennis A. Benson, Ilene Karsch-Mizrachi, David J. Lipman, James Ostell, and David L. Wheeler. 2006. “GenBank.” Nucleic Acids Research 34(Database):D16–D20. Available at See also Robert C. Kennicutt, Jr., 2007. “Sloan at five.” Nature 450:488–489.

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement