Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands.
Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0263023
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Bouter LM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gopalakrishna G;Ter Riet G;Vink G;Stoop I;Wicherts JM;Bouter LM
学术研究人员对研究不端行为、可疑研究实践（QRP）及其与一系列解释因素的关联的普遍性尚未进行充分研究。全国研究诚信调查针对荷兰所有学科领域和学术级别。它包括关于过去三年中参与制造，伪造和11个QRP的问题，以及12个解释性因素量表。我们确保严格的身份保护，并对有关研究不当行为的问题采用随机回答方法。6,813名受访者完成了调查。捏造患病率为4.3%（95% CI：2.9，5.7），伪造患病率为4.2%（95% CI：2.8，5.6）。QRP的患病率范围为0.6%（95% CI：0.5，0.9）至17.5%（95% CI：16.4，18.7），51.3%（95% CI：50.1，52.5）的受访者经常参与至少一个QRP。作为一名博士候选人或初级研究人员，经常参与至少一项QRP的几率增加，男性也是如此。科学规范订阅（比值比（OR）0.79; 95%CI：0.63，1.00）和被审查者检测到的可能性（OR 0.62，95%CI：0.44，0.88）与较少的研究不当行为有关。发表压力与更频繁地参与一个或多个QRP相关（OR 1.22，95%CI：1.14，1.30）。我们发现不当行为的发生率高于以前的调查。我们的研究结果表明，更加重视科学规范的订阅，加强审稿人作为研究质量的守门人的作用，并遏制“出版或灭亡”的激励制度，促进研究诚信。
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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Aubert Bonn N;Pinxten W
通讯作者：
Pinxten W
DOI：
10.1525/jer.2010.5.3.67
发表时间：
2010-09
期刊：
Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE
影响因子：
--
作者：
Martinson BC;Crain AL;De Vries R;Anderson MS
通讯作者：
Anderson MS
影响因子：
3.1
作者：
Anderson, Melissa S.;Ronning, Emily A.;Martinson, Brian C.
通讯作者：
Martinson, Brian C.
影响因子：
6.3
作者：
Lensvelt-Mulders, GJLM;Hox, JJ;Maas, CJM
通讯作者：
Maas, CJM
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Haven, Tamarinde L.;Tijdink, Joeri K.;Bouter, Lex M.
通讯作者：
Bouter, Lex M.