Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam.
Publication pressure
Research climate
Research integrity
Research misbehavior
Journal
Research integrity and peer review
ISSN: 2058-8615
Titre abrégé: Res Integr Peer Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676020
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 May 2021
03 May 2021
Historique:
received:
19
06
2020
accepted:
11
04
2021
entrez:
4
5
2021
pubmed:
5
5
2021
medline:
5
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Concerns about research misbehavior in academic science have sparked interest in the factors that may explain research misbehavior. Often three clusters of factors are distinguished: individual factors, climate factors and publication factors. Our research question was: to what extent can individual, climate and publication factors explain the variance in frequently perceived research misbehaviors? From May 2017 until July 2017, we conducted a survey study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. The survey included three measurement instruments that we previously reported individual results of and here we integrate these findings. One thousand two hundred ninety-eight researchers completed the survey (response rate: 17%). Results showed that individual, climate and publication factors combined explained 34% of variance in perceived frequency of research misbehavior. Individual factors explained 7%, climate factors explained 22% and publication factors 16%. Our results suggest that the perceptions of the research climate play a substantial role in explaining variance in research misbehavior. This suggests that efforts to improve departmental norms might have a salutary effect on behavior.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Concerns about research misbehavior in academic science have sparked interest in the factors that may explain research misbehavior. Often three clusters of factors are distinguished: individual factors, climate factors and publication factors. Our research question was: to what extent can individual, climate and publication factors explain the variance in frequently perceived research misbehaviors?
METHODS
METHODS
From May 2017 until July 2017, we conducted a survey study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. The survey included three measurement instruments that we previously reported individual results of and here we integrate these findings.
RESULTS
RESULTS
One thousand two hundred ninety-eight researchers completed the survey (response rate: 17%). Results showed that individual, climate and publication factors combined explained 34% of variance in perceived frequency of research misbehavior. Individual factors explained 7%, climate factors explained 22% and publication factors 16%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that the perceptions of the research climate play a substantial role in explaining variance in research misbehavior. This suggests that efforts to improve departmental norms might have a salutary effect on behavior.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33941288
doi: 10.1186/s41073-021-00110-w
pii: 10.1186/s41073-021-00110-w
pmc: PMC8094603
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
7Subventions
Organisme : Templeton World Charity Foundation
ID : #TWCF0163/AB106
Organisme : Universiteit van Amsterdam
ID : NA
Organisme : Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
ID : NA
Organisme : Amsterdam University Medical Centers
ID : NA
Références
Sci Eng Ethics. 2013 Sep;19(3):835-50
pubmed: 23096774
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 Dec 2;4:25
pubmed: 31819806
Sci Eng Ethics. 2013 Sep;19(3):813-34
pubmed: 23096775
Annu Rev Psychol. 2014;65:635-60
pubmed: 23834354
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 Apr 9;4:7
pubmed: 31007948
Sci Eng Ethics. 2006 Jan;12(1):53-74
pubmed: 16501647
Perspect Med Educ. 2019 Apr;8(2):74-82
pubmed: 30915714
J Clin Invest. 2008 Jul;118(7):2368
pubmed: 18596904
mBio. 2013 Mar 26;4(2):
pubmed: 23532977
Nature. 2005 Jun 9;435(7043):737-8
pubmed: 15944677
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016 Nov 21;1:17
pubmed: 29451551
J Appl Psychol. 2003 Oct;88(5):879-903
pubmed: 14516251
PLoS One. 2019 Jun 19;14(6):e0217931
pubmed: 31216293
BMJ Open. 2016 Feb 17;6(2):e008681
pubmed: 26888726
Int J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb;21(1):15-21
pubmed: 26289019
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 18;14(1):e0210599
pubmed: 30657778
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov;7(6):670-88
pubmed: 26168129
PLoS One. 2009 May 29;4(5):e5738
pubmed: 19478950
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 17;10(6):e0127556
pubmed: 26083381
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014 Dec;9(5):64-71
pubmed: 25747691
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006 Mar;1(1):43-50
pubmed: 16810336