ABSTRACTIt is commonly hypothesized that scientists are more likely to engage in data falsification and fabrication when they are subject to pressures to publish, when they are not restrained by forms of social control, when they work in countries lacking policies to tackle scientific misconduct, and when they are male. Evidence to test these hypotheses, however, is inconclusive due to the difficulties of obtaining unbiased data.Here we report a pre-registered test of these four hypotheses, conducted on papers that were identified in a previous study as containing problematic image duplications through a systematic screening of the journal PLoS ONE. Image duplications were classified into three categories based on their complexity, with category 1 being most likely to reflect unintentional error and category 3 being most likely to reflect intentional fabrication. Multiple parameters connected to the hypotheses above were tested with a matched-control paradigm, by collecting two controls for each paper containing duplications.Category 1 duplications were mostly not associated with any of the parameters tested, in accordance with the assumption that these duplications were mostly not due to misconduct. Category 2 and 3, however, exhibited numerous statistically significant associations. Results of univariable and multivariable analyses support the hypotheses that academic culture, peer control, cash-based publication incentives and national misconduct policies might affect scientific integrity. Significant correlations between the risk of image duplication and individual publication rates or gender, however, were only observed in secondary and exploratory analyses.Country-level parameters generally exhibited effects of larger magnitude than individual-level parameters, because a subset of countries was significantly more likely to produce problematic image duplications. Promoting good research practices in all countries should be a priority for the international research integrity agenda.
Research misconduct complaints and institutional logics: The case of Hans Eysenck and the British Psychological Society
