Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity.
Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0127556
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Larivière V
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fanelli D;Costas R;Larivière V
人们普遍认为，科学家的诚实和正直受到发表压力、不支持的研究环境以及其他结构、社会学和心理因素的威胁。对这些因素重要性的信念激发了重大政策举措，但支持这些因素的证据要么不存在，要么来自自我报告和其他已知局限性的来源。我们采用回顾性研究设计来验证科学不端行为的风险因素是否可以预测撤稿（通常是研究不端行为的结果）或纠正（即对小错误的诚实纠正）的发生。收集了 2010-2011 年已被撤回或更正的论文的所有共同作者（分别为 N=611 和 N=2226 篇论文）以及按期刊和期刊匹配的对照论文作者（分别为 N=1181 和 N=4285 篇论文）的书目和个人信息，并使用条件逻辑回归进行分析。结果避免了过去研究的一些局限性，并且对不同的抽样策略都是稳健的，支持这样一种观点，即在缺乏研究诚信政策的国家、在个人发表表现获得现金奖励的国家、在相互批评受到阻碍的文化和情况下以及在研究人员职业生涯的早期阶段，科学不端行为更有可能发生。男性可能容易出现科学不端行为的假设并未得到支持，而且普遍认为发表压力是不端行为的主要驱动因素的观点在很大程度上是矛盾的：高影响力和生产力的研究人员，以及那些在发表压力被认为较高的国家工作的人，不太可能发表被撤回的论文，更有可能纠正它们。因此，如果专注于促进研究诚信政策、改善指导和培训以及鼓励研究人员之间的透明沟通，减少和防止不当行为的努力可能会最有效。
The honesty and integrity of scientists is widely believed to be threatened by pressures to publish, unsupportive research environments, and other structural, sociological and psychological factors. Belief in the importance of these factors has inspired major policy initiatives, but evidence to support them is either non-existent or derived from self-reports and other sources that have known limitations. We used a retrospective study design to verify whether risk factors for scientific misconduct could predict the occurrence of retractions, which are usually the consequence of research misconduct, or corrections, which are honest rectifications of minor mistakes. Bibliographic and personal information were collected on all co-authors of papers that have been retracted or corrected in 2010-2011 (N=611 and N=2226 papers, respectively) and authors of control papers matched by journal and issue (N=1181 and N=4285 papers, respectively), and were analysed with conditional logistic regression. Results, which avoided several limitations of past studies and are robust to different sampling strategies, support the notion that scientific misconduct is more likely in countries that lack research integrity policies, in countries where individual publication performance is rewarded with cash, in cultures and situations were mutual criticism is hampered, and in the earliest phases of a researcher’s career. The hypothesis that males might be prone to scientific misconduct was not supported, and the widespread belief that pressures to publish are a major driver of misconduct was largely contradicted: high-impact and productive researchers, and those working in countries in which pressures to publish are believed to be higher, are less-likely to produce retracted papers, and more likely to correct them. Efforts to reduce and prevent misconduct, therefore, might be most effective if focused on promoting research integrity policies, improving mentoring and training, and encouraging transparent communication amongst researchers.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
15.8
作者：
Ana J;Koehlmoos T;Smith R;Yan LL
通讯作者：
Yan LL
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.1302997110
发表时间：
2013-09-10
影响因子：
11.1
作者：
Fanelli, Daniele;Ioannidis, John P. A.
通讯作者：
Ioannidis, John P. A.
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Costas R;Bordons M
通讯作者：
Bordons M
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.1212247109
发表时间：
2012-10-16
影响因子：
11.1
作者：
Fang, Ferric C.;Steen, R. Grant;Casadevall, Arturo
通讯作者：
Casadevall, Arturo
影响因子：
56.9
作者：
Franzoni, Chiara;Scellato, Giuseppe;Stephan, Paula
通讯作者：
Stephan, Paula