IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0263023.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Gowri Gopalakrishna
  • Gerben ter Riet
  • Gerko Vink
  • Ineke Stoop
  • Jelte M Wicherts
  • Lex M Bouter

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Gowri Gopalakrishna & Gerben ter Riet & Gerko Vink & Ineke Stoop & Jelte M Wicherts & Lex M Bouter, 2022. "Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0263023
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263023
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263023&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Melissa S. Anderson & Emily A. Ronning & Raymond De Vries & Brian C. Martinson, 2010. "Extending the Mertonian Norms: Scientists' Subscription to Norms of Research," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 81(3), pages 366-393, May.
    2. van Buuren, Stef & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, Karin, 2011. "mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 45(i03).
    3. Rubin, Donald B, 1986. "Statistical Matching Using File Concatenation with Adjusted Weights and Multiple Imputations," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 4(1), pages 87-94, January.
    4. Jelte M. Wicherts, 2011. "Psychology must learn a lesson from fraud case," Nature, Nature, vol. 480(7375), pages 7-7, December.
    5. Little, Roderick J A, 1988. "Missing-Data Adjustments in Large Surveys," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 6(3), pages 287-296, July.
    6. List, John A, et al, 2001. "Academic Economists Behaving Badly? A Survey on Three Areas of Unethical Behavior," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(1), pages 162-170, January.
    7. Daniele Fanelli, 2009. "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-11, May.
    8. David Moher & Lex Bouter & Sabine Kleinert & Paul Glasziou & Mai Har Sham & Virginia Barbour & Anne-Marie Coriat & Nicole Foeger & Ulrich Dirnagl, 2020. "The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-14, July.
    9. Niels Mejlgaard & Lex M. Bouter & George Gaskell & Panagiotis Kavouras & Nick Allum & Anna-Kathrine Bendtsen & Costas A. Charitidis & Nik Claesen & Kris Dierickx & Anna Domaradzka & Andrea Reyes Elizo, 2020. "Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk," Nature, Nature, vol. 586(7829), pages 358-360, October.
    10. Maarten J. L. F. Cruyff & Ardo Van Den Hout & Peter G. M. Van Der Heijden, 2008. "The analysis of randomized response sum score variables," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(1), pages 21-30, February.
    11. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2012. "Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 50-58.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gerald Schweiger & Adrian Barnett & Peter van den Besselaar & Lutz Bornmann & Andreas De Block & John P. A. Ioannidis & Ulf Sandstrom & Stijn Conix, 2024. "The Costs of Competition in Distributing Scarce Research Funds," Papers 2403.16934, arXiv.org.
    2. Freuli, Francesca & Held, Leonhard & Heyard, Rachel, 2022. "Replication success under questionable research practices – a simulation study," MetaArXiv s4b65, Center for Open Science.
    3. María Núñez-Núñez & Naomi Cano-Ibáñez & Javier Zamora & Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas & Khalid Saeed Khan, 2023. "Assessing the Integrity of Clinical Trials Included in Evidence Syntheses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(12), pages 1-13, June.
    4. Sarstedt, Marko & Adler, Susanne J., 2023. "An advanced method to streamline p-hacking," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saeideh Kamgar & Florian Meinfelder & Ralf Münnich & Hamidreza Navvabpour, 2020. "Estimation within the new integrated system of household surveys in Germany," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 61(5), pages 2091-2117, October.
    2. Kristian Kleinke & Mark Stemmler & Jost Reinecke & Friedrich Lösel, 2011. "Efficient ways to impute incomplete panel data," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 95(4), pages 351-373, December.
    3. Jana Emmenegger & Ralf Münnich & Jannik Schaller, 2022. "Evaluating Data Fusion Methods to Improve Income Modelling," Research Papers in Economics 2022-03, University of Trier, Department of Economics.
    4. Rosie Hastings & Krishma Labib & Iris Lechner & Lex Bouter & Guy Widdershoven & Natalie Evans, 2023. "Guidance on research integrity provided by pan-European discipline-specific learned societies: A scoping review," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 318-335.
    5. Mingyang Cai & Gerko Vink, 2022. "A note on imputing squares via polynomial combination approach," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 2185-2201, November.
    6. Joost Ginkel & Pieter Kroonenberg, 2014. "Using Generalized Procrustes Analysis for Multiple Imputation in Principal Component Analysis," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 31(2), pages 242-269, July.
    7. Norah Alyabs & Sy Han Chiou, 2022. "The Missing Indicator Approach for Accelerated Failure Time Model with Covariates Subject to Limits of Detection," Stats, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-13, May.
    8. Joost R. Ginkel, 2020. "Standardized Regression Coefficients and Newly Proposed Estimators for $${R}^{{2}}$$R2 in Multiply Imputed Data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 85(1), pages 185-205, March.
    9. Gerko Vink & Laurence E. Frank & Jeroen Pannekoek & Stef Buuren, 2014. "Predictive mean matching imputation of semicontinuous variables," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 68(1), pages 61-90, February.
    10. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 38-55, January.
    11. Brownstone, David, 1997. "Multiple Imputation Methodology for Missing Data, Non-Random Response, and Panel Attrition," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt2zd6w6hh, University of California Transportation Center.
    12. Brian Fabo & Martina Jancokova & Elisabeth Kempf & Lubos Pastor, 2020. "Fifty Shades of QE: Conflicts of Interest in Economic Research," Working and Discussion Papers WP 5/2020, Research Department, National Bank of Slovakia.
    13. Dato, Simon & Nieken, Petra, 2014. "Gender differences in competition and sabotage," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 64-80.
    14. Westermeier, Christian & Grabka, Markus M., 2016. "Longitudinal Wealth Data and Multiple Imputation: An Evaluation Study," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10(3), pages 237-252.
    15. Youngjoo Cho & Debashis Ghosh, 2021. "Quantile-Based Subgroup Identification for Randomized Clinical Trials," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 13(1), pages 90-128, April.
    16. Necker, Sarah, 2014. "Scientific misbehavior in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1747-1759.
    17. Ahfock, Daniel & Pyne, Saumyadipta & McLachlan, Geoffrey J., 2022. "Statistical file-matching of non-Gaussian data: A game theoretic approach," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    18. Arif Mamun & David Wittenburg & Noelle Denny-Brown & Michael Levere & David Mann & Rebecca Coughlin & Sarah Croake & Heather Gordon & Denise Hoffman & Rachel Holzwart & Rosalind Keith & Brittany McGil, "undated". "Promoting Opportunity Demonstration: Interim Evaluation Report," Mathematica Policy Research Reports caa99d38a8b14f968ea3438e5, Mathematica Policy Research.
    19. Brunori, Paolo & Salas-Rojo, Pedro & Verme, Paolo, 2022. "Estimating Inequality with Missing Incomes," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1138, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    20. Fumagalli, Laura & Sala, Emanuela, 2011. "The total survey error paradigm and pre-election polls: the case of the 2006 Italian general elections," ISER Working Paper Series 2011-29, Institute for Social and Economic Research.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0263023. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.