Cargando…
Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands
Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Neth...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8849616/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35171921 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023 |
_version_ | 1784652492430114816 |
---|---|
author | Gopalakrishna, Gowri ter Riet, Gerben Vink, Gerko Stoop, Ineke Wicherts, Jelte M. Bouter, Lex M. |
author_facet | Gopalakrishna, Gowri ter Riet, Gerben Vink, Gerko Stoop, Ineke Wicherts, Jelte M. Bouter, Lex M. |
author_sort | Gopalakrishna, Gowri |
collection | PubMed |
description | Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. It included questions about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used the randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. 6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and of falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30). We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the “publish or perish” incentive system promotes research integrity. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8849616 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88496162022-02-17 Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands Gopalakrishna, Gowri ter Riet, Gerben Vink, Gerko Stoop, Ineke Wicherts, Jelte M. Bouter, Lex M. PLoS One Research Article Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. It included questions about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used the randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. 6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and of falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30). We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the “publish or perish” incentive system promotes research integrity. Public Library of Science 2022-02-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8849616/ /pubmed/35171921 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023 Text en © 2022 Gopalakrishna et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Gopalakrishna, Gowri ter Riet, Gerben Vink, Gerko Stoop, Ineke Wicherts, Jelte M. Bouter, Lex M. Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands |
title | Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands |
title_full | Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands |
title_fullStr | Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands |
title_full_unstemmed | Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands |
title_short | Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands |
title_sort | prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: a survey among academic researchers in the netherlands |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8849616/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35171921 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gopalakrishnagowri prevalenceofquestionableresearchpracticesresearchmisconductandtheirpotentialexplanatoryfactorsasurveyamongacademicresearchersinthenetherlands AT terrietgerben prevalenceofquestionableresearchpracticesresearchmisconductandtheirpotentialexplanatoryfactorsasurveyamongacademicresearchersinthenetherlands AT vinkgerko prevalenceofquestionableresearchpracticesresearchmisconductandtheirpotentialexplanatoryfactorsasurveyamongacademicresearchersinthenetherlands AT stoopineke prevalenceofquestionableresearchpracticesresearchmisconductandtheirpotentialexplanatoryfactorsasurveyamongacademicresearchersinthenetherlands AT wichertsjeltem prevalenceofquestionableresearchpracticesresearchmisconductandtheirpotentialexplanatoryfactorsasurveyamongacademicresearchersinthenetherlands AT bouterlexm prevalenceofquestionableresearchpracticesresearchmisconductandtheirpotentialexplanatoryfactorsasurveyamongacademicresearchersinthenetherlands |