Analysis and reflection regarding the Pearce Case

Scientific fraud

Authors

Keywords:

Scientific Misconduct, Authorship in Scientific Publications, Fraud, Peer Review, Research, Scientific Communication and Diffusion

Abstract

Objective: To reflect on the Pearce Case, an instance of scientific misconduct that presents traits which characterize scientific fraud.

Method: A reflection based on the topic, with its search made during May and June 2024 in Temuco, Chile.

Results: Ethical breaches that impaired transparency in the editorial process were identified, such as data fabrication and falsification, authorship irregularities and conflicts of interests. Flaws were also detected in the peer review process, in addition to absence of effective editorial barriers and to low data reproducibility.

Final considerations: Organizations should implement strategies to counteract scientific fraud, such as training programs in scientific ethics, transparency in research and requiring public data availability. It is also fundamental for authors, editors, reviewers, academic institutions and readers assume shared responsibility, in order to implement honest practices during the process.

Author Biographies

Kathia Alexandra Yáñez-Flores, University of La Frontera, Temuco, IX Region of Araucanía, Chile.

Nurse. Master's degree in Nursing with a focus on Care Management, Professor at the University of La Frontera, Temuco, IX Region of Araucanía, Chile.

Katiuska Reynaldos-Grandón, University, School of Nursing, Santiago, Chile

Nurse-Midwife. PhD in Business Administration. Associate Professor, Andrés Bello University, School of Nursing, Santiago, Chile.

References

1. Tapia R. La Ética y los Fraudes en Investigación Científica. Rev educ bioquim [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2024 May 19];32(1):1-2. Available from: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S166519952013000100001&lng=es

2. Díaz GM. El fraude en las publicaciones científicas: más allá de fabricar, falsificar y plagiar. Tecnológicas [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2024 May 18];19(36):9-12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.22430/22565337.583

3. Resnik DB. Fraud, Fabrication and Falsification. En: Ezekiel JE (editor). The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. Estados Unidos: Oxford University Press; 2008. Chapter 72. p. 787-93.

4. Venegas C, Fuentes R. Una revisión de los tipos de fraude científico más frecuentes. Int J Odontostomat [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 May 14];17(2):200-5. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-381X2023000200200

5. Vega-Villasante F, Chong-Carrillo O, Guerrero Galván SR. El fraude científico: delito académico; primera parte. Lucidum Ciencia [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2024 May 14];1(2):1-10 Available from: https://www.cuc.udg.mx/index.php/lucidum-ciencia/lucidum-ciencia-num-2-julio-diciembre-2022/1-el-fraude-cientifico-delito-academico-primera-parte

6. La Rosa Rodríguez E. Los conflictos de intereses. Acta bioeth [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2024 May 23];17(1):47-54. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S1726-569X2011000100006

7. Tudela J, Aznar J. ¿Publicar o morir? El fraude en la investigación y las publicaciones científicas. Pers Bioét. [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2024 May 28];17:12-27. Available from: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5749788

8. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Gorin SV, Koroleva AM, Kitas GD. Statement on publication ethics for editors and publishers. J Korean Med Sci [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2024 June 21];31(9):1351. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.9.1351

9. Santos PHS, Dutra LP, Sena ELS, Yari SD, Boery RNSO. Publicar, publicar, publicar... Até aonde vai a ética científica? Acta bioeth [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2024 May 22];23(1):63-70. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S1726-569X2017000100063

10. Combalia A. Autoría responsable. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2024 May 22];66(2):75-6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recot.2022.03.004

11. NISO CRediT Working Group. ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022, CRediT, Contributor Roles Taxonomy. NISO [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2024 May 22];1-12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3789/ansi.niso.z39.104-2022

12 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals [Internet]. 2026 [cited 2026 Mar 2]. 21 p. Available from: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/

13. Batista DO, Peralta González MJ, García García O. La coautoría como expresión de la colaboración en la producción científica de Camagüey. Biblios [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2024 May 18];(70):1-16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5195/biblios.2018.423

14. Hernández-Chavarría F. Fraude en la autoría de artículos científicos. Rev Biomed [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2024 May 22];18(2):127-40. Available from: https://revistabiomedica.uady.mx/revbiomed/article/view/485/496

15. Pubpeer. About PubPeer. Pubpeer. The online Journal club [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 May 28]. Available from: https://pubpeer.com/static/about

16. Schneider L. About for better science and contact. For Better Science [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2024 May 28]. Available from: https://forbetterscience.com/about/

17. Reyes-Carrillo S, Eudave-Muñoz D. Conductas no éticas en la investigación científica: prevalencia, causas asociadas y estrategias de prevención. Una revisión sistemática. Innov educ [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2024 May 18];24(Especial):105-25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.22458/ie.v24iEspecial.4312

18. Elbanna S, Child J. From ‘publish or perish’ to ‘publish for purpose’. Eur Manag Rev [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2025 Nov 12];20(4):614-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12618

19. Amutuhaire T. The Reality of the ‘Publish or Perish’ Concept, Perspectives from the Global South. Pub Res Q [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2025 Nov 12];38:281-94. Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12109-022-09879-0

20. Ambrosino N, Pacini F. Publish or perish? Perish to publish? (Unrequested advices to young researchers). Pulmonology [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2025 Nov 12];28(5):327-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pulmoe.2022.03.008

Downloads

Published

2026-03-30

How to Cite

Yáñez-Flores, K. A., & Reynaldos-Grandón, K. (2026). Analysis and reflection regarding the Pearce Case: Scientific fraud. Cogitare Enfermagem, 31. Retrieved from https://revistas.ufpr.br/cogitare/article/view/100892

Issue

Vol. 31 (2026)

Section

Review

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Kathia Alexandra Yáñez-Flores, Katiuska Reynaldos-Grandón

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Cogitare Enfermagem reserves the right to make normative, orthographic, and grammatical changes to the published article to maintain the cultured standard of the language, while respecting the authors' style.

The published study is the sole responsibility of the author(s), and Cogitare Enfermagem is exclusively responsible for evaluating the manuscript as a scientific publication vehicle. Revista Cogitare Enfermagem is not responsible for any violations of Law No. 9,610/1998, the Brazilian Copyright Law.

Cogitare Enfermagem allows the author to hold the copyright of articles accepted for publication, without restrictions.

The articles published are licensed under the Creative Commons license CC BY 4.0 Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0 - The attribution adopted by Cogitare Enfermagem is permitted:

  • Share - copy and redistribute the material in any media or format.
  • Adapt - remix, transform and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
  • Attribution - You must give proper credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes have been made. You may do this in any reasonable way, but not in a way that suggests that the licensor endorses it or approves of its use.
  • No additional restrictions - You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing something that the license allows.