Reflexive Behaviour: How Publication Pressure Affects Research Quality in Astronomy

Reflexive metrics is a branch of science studies that explores how the demand for accountability and performance measurement in science has shaped the research culture in recent decades. Hypercompetition and publication pressure are part of this neoliberal culture. How do scientists respond to these pressures? Studies on research integrity and organisational culture suggest that people who feel treated unfairly by their institution are more likely to engage in deviant behaviour, such as scientific misconduct. By building up on reflexive metrics, combined with studies on the influence of organisational culture on research integrity, this study reflects on the research behaviour of astronomers with the following questions: (1) To what extent is research (mis-)behaviour reflexive, i.e., dependent on perceptions of publication pressure and distributive and organisational justice? (2) What impact does scientific misconduct have on research quality? In order to perform this reflection, we conducted a comprehensive survey of academic and non-academic astronomers worldwide and received 3509 responses. We found that publication pressure explains 10% of the variance in occurrence of misconduct and between 7% and 13% of the variance of the perception of distributive and organisational justice as well as overcommitment to work. Our results on the perceived impact of scientific misconduct on research quality show that the epistemic harm of questionable research practices should not be underestimated. This suggests there is a need for a policy change. In particular, lesser attention to metrics (such as publication rate) in the allocation of grants, telescope time and institutional rewards would foster better scientific conduct and, hence, research quality.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceived publication pressure among academic researchers in Canada

The phenomenon of “publish-or-perish” in academia, spurred on by limited funding and academic positions, has led to increased competition and pressure on academics to publish. Publication pressure has been linked with multiple negative outcomes, including increased academic misconduct and researcher burnout. COVID-19 has disrupted research worldwide, leading to lost research time and increased anxiety amongst researchers. The objective of this study was to examine how COVID-19 has impacted perceived publication pressure amongst academic researchers in Canada. We used the revised Publication Pressure Questionnaire, in addition to Likert-type questions to discern respondents’ beliefs and concerns about the impact of COVID-19 on academic publishing. We found that publication pressure increased across academic researchers in Canada following the pandemic, with respondents reporting increased stress, increased pessimism, and decreased access to support related to publishing. Doctoral students reported the highest levels of stress and pessimism, while principal investigators had the most access to publication support. There were no significant differences in publication pressure reported between different research disciplines. Women and non-binary or genderfluid respondents reported higher stress and pessimism than men. We also identified differences in perceived publication pressure based on respondents’ publication frequency and other demographic factors, including disability and citizenship status. Overall, we document a snapshot of perceived publication pressure in Canada across researchers of different academic career stages and disciplines. This information can be used to guide the creation of researcher supports, as well as identify groups of researchers who may benefit from targeted resources.

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

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.

Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research

The paper reports two studies exploring the relationship between scholars’ self-reported publication pressure and their self-reported scientific misconduct in research. In Study 1 the participants ( N = 423) were scholars representing various disciplines from one big university in Poland. In Study 2 the participants ( N = 31) were exclusively members of the management, such as dean, director, etc. from the same university. In Study 1 the most common reported form of scientific misconduct was honorary authorship. The majority of researchers (71%) reported that they had not violated ethical standards in the past; 3% admitted to scientific misconduct; 51% reported being were aware of colleagues’ scientific misconduct. A small positive correlation between perceived publication pressure and intention to engage in scientific misconduct in the future was found. In Study 2 more than half of the management (52%) reported being aware of researchers’ dishonest practices, the most frequent one of these being honorary authorship. As many as 71% of the participants report observing publication pressure in their subordinates. The primary conclusions are: (1) most scholars are convinced of their morality and predict that they will behave morally in the future; (2) scientific misconduct, particularly minor offenses such as honorary authorship, is frequently observed both by researchers (particularly in their colleagues) and by their managers; (3) researchers experiencing publication pressure report a willingness to engage in scientific misconduct in the future.

How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists

The publish-or-perish principle has become a fact of academic life in gaining a position or being promoted. Evidence is mounting that benefits of this pressure is being countered by the downsides, like forms of goal displacement by scientists or unethical practices. In this paper we evaluate whether perceived work pressure (publishing, acquisition funds, teaching, administration) is associated with different attitudes towards science and the workplace among economists working at Dutch universities. Publication pressure is high and is related to faculty position and university ranking position. Based on a latent class analysis we can detect a clear divide among economists. Around two third of the economists perceives that this pressure has upsides as well as serious downsides and one third only perceives upsides and no downsides. Full professors see more than other faculty members the positive sides of the publish-or-perish principle and virtually no downsides. These different perceptions are also reflected in their appreciation of the academic work environment.

Psychometric properties of Persian version of the research misconduct questionnaire (PRMQ)

Assessment of scientific misconduct is considered to be an increasingly important topic in medical sciences. Providing a definition for scientific research misconduct and proposing practical methods for evaluating and measuring it in various fields of medicine discipline are required. This study aimed at assessing the psychometric properties of Scientific Research Misconduct-Revised (SMQ-R) and Publication Pressure Questionnaires (PPQ). After translation and merging of these two questionnaires, the validity of the translated draft was evaluated by 11-member expert panel using Content Validity Index (CVI) and Content Validity Ratio (CVR). Reliability of the final questionnaire, completed by 100 participants randomly chosen from medical academic members, was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The final version was named Persian Research Misconduct Questionnaire (PRMQ) and consisted of 63 question items. The item-level content validity indices of 61 questions were above 0.79, and reliability assessment showed that 6 out of 7 subscales had alpha values higher than 0.6. Hence, PRMQ can be considered an acceptable, valid and reliable tool to measure research misconduct in biomedical sciences researches in Iran.

Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research

The article aims to examine the relationship between scholars’ self-reported publication pressure and their self-reported scientific misconduct in research. In Study 1 the participants (N = 423) were scholars representing various disciplines from one big university in Poland. In Study 2 the participants (N = 31) were exclusively members of the management, such as dean, director, etc. from the same university. In Study 1 the most popular scientific misconduct was honorary authorship. The majority of researchers (71%) reported that they definitely had not violated ethical standards in the past, but 51% of the participants were aware of their colleagues’ scientific misconduct. Participants reported a significantly higher level of dishonesty among others compared to their scientific misconduct. Individuals observing strong publication pressure in their colleagues were also aware of their colleagues’ practices violating ethical standards. A small positive correlation between perceived publication pressure and intention to engage in scientific misconduct in the future was found. Only 3% of the participants stated that the current system of evaluating their research work was fully satisfactory. In Study 2 more than half of the management (52%) were aware of researchers’ dishonest practices, the most frequent one of these being honorary authorship. As many as 71% of the participants observe publication pressure in their subordinates. Three main conclusions are: 1) most scholars are convinced of their morality and predict that they will behave morally in the future; 2) our results attest to the problem of scientific misconduct, particularly minor offenses such as honorary authorship, observed both by researchers themselves (particularly in their colleagues) and by their superiors; 3) researchers experiencing publication pressure report an intention to engage in scientific misconduct in the future, and individuals in managerial positions observing publication pressure in their subordinates also observe their dishonest research practices.