Procedural Injustice in the System of Peer Review and Scientific Misconduct

Scientific misconduct, an alarming problem in the social and natural sciences, is rarely addressed through systematic research. Why do scholars do it? Using a group engagement model of procedural justice, I make the case that procedural injustice in the peer-review system encourages scientific misconduct by generating feelings of cynicism about the legitimacy of the peer-review system and by lowering scholars' felt-obligation to abide by accepted norms for scientific conduct. Only a subset of scholars engage in scientific misconduct despite conditions of procedural injustice; therefore, I also explore the direct and indirect effects of individual differences and local work context.