scholarly journals Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: a survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gowri Gopalakrishna ◽  
Gerben ter Riet ◽  
Maarten J.L.F. Cruyff ◽  
Gerko Vink ◽  
Ineke Stoop ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Publish Or Perish ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Explanatory Factors ◽  
Scientific Norm ◽  
Response Method

BackgroundPrevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers.Methods The National Survey on Research Integrity was aimed at all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. The survey enquired 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 a randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. Results6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and 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 ≥ 1 QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in ≥ 1 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 lower odds of research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with higher odds of engaging frequently in ≥ 1 QRP (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30).ConclusionsWe 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 can promote research integrity.

scholarly journals Prevalence of responsible research practices and their potential explanatory factors: a survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gowri Gopalakrishna ◽  
Jelte M. Wicherts ◽  
Gerko Vink ◽  
Ineke Stoop ◽  
Olmo Van den Akker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Arts And Humanities ◽  
Explanatory Factors ◽  
Scientific Norm ◽  
Publication Pressure ◽  
Funding Pressure ◽  
Responsible Research

BackgroundWhile substantial attention has been paid to research misbehaviors, responsible research practices (RRPs) and their potential explanatory factors have not been studied extensively.Methods The National Survey on Research Integrity (NSRI) is an online survey targeting all disciplines and academic ranks in The Netherlands. Data was collected on 11 RRPs and 12 explanatory factor scales. Results were controlled for explanatory factor scales, academic rank, disciplinary field, gender, doing empirical research and if respondents belonged to a NSRI supporting institution or not.Results6,813 respondents completed the survey. The RRPs with the highest prevalence were avoiding plagiarism (99%), disclosing conflicts of interest (96.5%) and checking for errors before publication (94.3%). Preregistration of study protocols (42.8%), making accessible underlying data and syntaxes (47.2%), and keeping comprehensive research records (56.3%) had the lowest prevalence. Arts and humanities scholars, PhD candidates and junior researchers were associated with a lower RRP mean (-0.51 and -0.31 respectively) as was publication pressure (-0.05; 95% CI -0.08, -0.02). Mentoring (0.15; 95% CI 0.12, 0.17), scientific norm subscription (0.13; 95% CI 0.1, 0.15) and funding pressure (0.13; 95% CI0.10, 0.17) were significantly associated with a higher RRP mean.ConclusionsWe found publication pressure to affect RRPs negatively. Mentoring, scientific norm subscription and funding pressure may help foster RRPs. Arts and humanities scholars, PhD candidates and junior researchers need more efforts to raise awareness on RRPs. Further research on these groups is warranted in order to understand research integrity challenges that may be unique to them.

scholarly journals Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (Part 2) — A multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noémie Aubert Bonn ◽  
Wim Pinxten
Keyword(s):  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Research Issues ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Research Students ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACTBackgroundResearch misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works provide the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders.MethodsTo capture some of the forgotten voices, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.ResultsGiven the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the quality and integrity of science. We first discovered that perspectives on misconduct, including the core reasons for condemning misconduct, differed between individuals and actor groups. Beyond misconduct, interviewees also identified numerous problems which affect the integrity of research. Issues related to personalities and attitudes, lack of knowledge of good practices, and research climate were mentioned. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research cultures and research environments. Even though everyone agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, no one felt responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups.ConclusionsOur findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, we must tackle how research is assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science should be revisited: not only should they directly address the impact of climates on research practices, but they should also redefine their objective to empower and support researchers rather than to capitalize on their compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making are crucial to building joint objectives for change.Trial registrationosf.io/33v3m

Survey on the Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices of Medical Students, PhD Students, and Supervisors at the Zagreb School of Medicine in Croatia

2021 ◽  
pp. 155626462110337
Author(s):  
Ana Marija Ljubenković ◽  
Ana Borovečki ◽  
Marko Ćurković ◽  
Bjørn Hofmann ◽  
Søren Holm
Keyword(s):  
Medical Students ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Research Environment ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
School Of Medicine ◽  
And Behavior

This cross-sectional study evaluates the knowledge, attitudes, experiences, and behavior of final year medical students, PhD students, and supervisors at the School of Medicine of the University of Zagreb in relation to research misconduct, questionable research practices, and the research environment. The overall response rate was 36.4% (68%–100% for the paper survey and 8%–15% for the online surveys). The analysis reveals statistically significant differences in attitude scores between PhD students and supervisors, the latter having attitudes more in concordance with accepted norms. The results overall show a nonnegligible incidence of self-reported misconduct and questionable research practices, as well as some problematic attitudes towards misconduct and questionable research practices. The incidence of problematic authorship practices was particularly high. The research environment was evaluated as being mostly supportive of research integrity.

scholarly journals Research Misconduct in Business and Management Studies: Causes, Consequences, and Possible Remedies

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis Tourish ◽  
Russell Craig
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Recommendations For Action ◽  
Research Fraud ◽  
Depth Interviews ◽  
Business And Management

This article analyses 131 articles that have been retracted from peer-reviewed journals in business and management studies. We also draw from six in-depth interviews: three with journal editors involved in retractions, two with coauthors of papers retracted because a fellow author committed research fraud, and one with a former academic found guilty of research fraud. Our aim is to promote debate about the causes and consequences of research misconduct and to suggest possible remedies. Drawing on corruption theory, we suggest that a range of institutional, environmental, and behavioral factors interacts to provide incentives that sustain research misconduct. We explore the research practices that have prompted retractions. We contend that some widely used, but questionable research practices, should be challenged so as to promote stronger commitment to research integrity and to deter misconduct. To this end, we propose eleven recommendations for action by authors, editors, publishers, and the broader scientific community.

scholarly journals Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) — a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Noémie Aubert Bonn ◽  
Wim Pinxten
Keyword(s):  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Culture ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Research Problems ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Research Students ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Research misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting. Results Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the integrity and research culture. We first found that different actors have different perspectives on the problems that affect the integrity and culture of research. Problems were either linked to personalities and attitudes, or to the climates in which researchers operate. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research culture and research integrity. Even though all participants agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, participants generally did not feel responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups. Conclusions Our findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, the research integrity debate must revisit and tackle the way in which researchers are assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science need to address the impact that research climates have on research integrity and research culture rather than to capitalize on individual researchers’ compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making must be given priority to ensure that the perspectives of the full research system are captured. Understanding the relations and interdependency between these perspectives is key to be able to address the problems of science. Study registration https://osf.io/33v3m

scholarly journals Announcing a New Registered Report Article Type at the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

2022 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Holly L. Storkel ◽  
Frederick J. Gallun
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Hearing Research ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Structural Problems ◽  
Article Type

Purpose: This editorial introduces the new registered reports article type for the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research . The goal of registered reports is to create a structural solution to address issues of publication bias toward results that are unexpected and sensational, questionable research practices that are used to produce novel results, and a peer-review process that occurs at the end of the research process when changes in fundamental design are difficult or impossible to implement. Conclusion: Registered reports can be a positive addition to scientific publications by addressing issues of publication bias, questionable research practices, and the late influence of peer review. This article type does so by requiring reviewers and authors to agree in advance that the experimental design is solid, the questions are interesting, and the results will be publishable regardless of the outcome. This procedure ensures that replication studies and null results make it into the published literature and that authors are not incentivized to alter their analyses based on the results that they obtain. Registered reports represent an ongoing commitment to research integrity and finding structural solutions to structural problems inherent in a research and publishing landscape in which publications are such a high-stakes aspect of individual and institutional success.

scholarly journals Occurrence and nature of questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in international scientific Health Services Research publications: a structured assessment of publications authored by researchers in the Netherlands

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e027903 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reinie G Gerrits ◽  
Tessa Jansen ◽  
Joko Mulyanto ◽  
Michael J van den Berg ◽  
Niek S Klazinga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Services Research ◽  
Health Services ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Services Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesExplore the occurrence and nature of questionable research practices (QRPs) in the reporting of messages and conclusions in international scientific Health Services Research (HSR) publications authored by researchers from HSR institutions in the Netherlands.DesignIn a joint effort to assure the overall quality of HSR publications in the Netherlands, 13 HSR institutions in the Netherlands participated in this study. Together with these institutions, we constructed and validated an assessment instrument covering 35 possible QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions. Two reviewers independently assessed a random sample of 116 HSR articles authored by researchers from these institutions published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals in 2016.SettingNetherlands, 2016.Sample116 international peer-reviewed HSR publications.Main outcome measuresMedian number of QRPs per publication, the percentage of publications with observed QRP frequencies, occurrence of specific QRPs and difference in total number of QRPs by methodological approach, type of research and study design.ResultsWe identified a median of six QRPs per publication out of 35 possible QRPs. QRPs occurred most frequently in the reporting of implications for practice, recommendations for practice, contradictory evidence, study limitations and conclusions based on the results and in the context of the literature. We identified no differences in total number of QRPs in papers based on different methodological approach, type of research or study design.ConclusionsGiven the applied nature of HSR, both the severity of the identified QRPs, and the recommendations for policy and practice in HSR publications warrant discussion. We recommend that the HSR field further define and establish its own scientific norms in publication practices to improve scientific reporting and strengthen the impact of HSR. The results of our study can serve as an empirical basis for continuous critical reflection on the reporting of messages and conclusions.

Questionable Research Practices: How to Recognize and Avoid Them

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-190
Author(s):  
William Newton Suter
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Home Health ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Scientific Rigor ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Nursing Science ◽  
Health Nurse ◽  
Cast Doubt ◽  
Research Findings

This article focuses on questionable research practices (QRPs) that bias findings and conclusions. QRPs cast doubt on the credibility of research findings in home health and nursing science in general. They assault the research integrity of all researchers to the extent they are permitted to exist at all. Each QRP is defined via bundles of specific research behaviors with unifying labels that include deceptive mirages and phantom sharpshooters among others. These questionable behaviors are described in ways that enhance research understanding and enable QRP avoidance by careful home health nurse researchers using higher standards of scientific rigor. QRPs impede scientific progress by generating false conclusions. They threaten the validity and dependability of scientific research and confuse other researchers who practice rigorous science and maintain integrity. QRPs also clog the literature with studies that cannot be replicated. When researchers engage in QRPs at the expense of rigor, overall trust in the scientific knowledge base erodes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document