IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i9d10.1007_s11192-024-05046-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Breach of academic values and misconduct: the case of Sci-Hub

Author

Listed:
  • Giulia Rossello

    (University of Pisa
    Maastricht University)

  • Arianna Martinelli

    (Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies)

Abstract

This paper investigates the growing evidence of research-related misconduct by developing and testing a theoretical framework. We study the deep causes of misconduct by asking whether the perception of an erosion of the core academic values, formally an ideology-based psychological contract breach, is associated with research-related misconduct. We test our framework by examining the use of Sci-Hub and providing empirical evidence that the loss of faith in scientific research sparkles research-related misconduct against publishers. Based on a stratified sample of 2849 academics working in 30 institutions in 6 European countries, we find that ideology-based psychological contract breach explains Sci-Hub usage, also when controlling for other possible motivations. The magnitude of the effect depends on contextual and demographic characteristics. Females, foreign, and tenured scholars are less likely to download papers illegally when experiencing a contract breach of academic values. Our results suggest that policies restoring academic values might also address research-related misconduct.

Suggested Citation

  • Giulia Rossello & Arianna Martinelli, 2024. "Breach of academic values and misconduct: the case of Sci-Hub," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5227-5263, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:9:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05046-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05046-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05046-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-024-05046-8?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Walsh, John P. & Lee, You-Na, 2015. "The bureaucratization of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1584-1600.
    2. Dato, Simon & Nieken, Petra, 2014. "Gender differences in competition and sabotage," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 64-80.
    3. 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.
    4. Grit Laudel, 2006. "The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(7), pages 489-504, August.
    5. Timothy Cronan & Sulaiman Al-Rafee, 2008. "Factors that Influence the Intention to Pirate Software and Media," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 78(4), pages 527-545, April.
    6. Giulia Rossello & Arianna Martinelli, 2023. "Breach of Academic Values and Digital Deviant Behaviour: the Case of Sci-Hub," LEM Papers Series 2023/13, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    7. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(3), pages 527-554, September.
    8. Wang, Jian & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Stephan, Paula, 2017. "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1416-1436.
    9. Martin Szomszor & David A. Pendlebury & Jonathan Adams, 2020. "How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1119-1147, May.
    10. Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2013. "Conflicting Logics? A Multidimensional View of Industrial and Academic Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 889-909, June.
    11. Heather Sarsons, 2017. "Recognition for Group Work: Gender Differences in Academia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 141-145, May.
    12. Scott Stern, 2004. "Do Scientists Pay to Be Scientists?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 835-853, June.
    13. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    14. Maria De Paola & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2015. "Gender Discrimination and Evaluators’ Gender: Evidence from Italian Academia," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 82(325), pages 162-188, January.
    15. Christian R Mejia & Mario J Valladares-Garrido & Armando Miñan-Tapia & Felipe T Serrano & Liz E Tobler-Gómez & William Pereda-Castro & Cynthia R Mendoza-Flores & Maria Y Mundaca-Manay & Danai Valladar, 2017. "Use, knowledge, and perception of the scientific contribution of Sci-Hub in medical students: Study in six countries in Latin America," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-9, October.
    16. Giulia Rossello & Robin Cowan & Jacques Mairesse, 2024. "Ph.D. publication productivity: the role of gender and race in supervision in South Africa," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 215-227, June.
    17. Rajshree Agarwal & Atsushi Ohyama, 2013. "Industry or Academia, Basic or Applied? Career Choices and Earnings Trajectories of Scientists," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 950-970, April.
    18. Martin Eisend, 2019. "Explaining Digital Piracy: A Meta-Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 636-664, June.
    19. Amalia Mas-Bleda & Mike Thelwall, 2016. "Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2007-2030, December.
    20. David Cyranoski & Natasha Gilbert & Heidi Ledford & Anjali Nayar & Mohammed Yahia, 2011. "Education: The PhD factory," Nature, Nature, vol. 472(7343), pages 276-279, April.
    21. 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.
    22. Necker, Sarah, 2014. "Scientific misbehavior in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1747-1759.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rossello, Giulia & Martinelli, Arianna, 2023. "Breach of academic values and digital deviant behaviour: The case of Sci-Hub," MERIT Working Papers 2023-009, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    2. Henry Sauermann, 2017. "Fire in the Belly? Employee Motives and Innovative Performance in Startups versus Established Firms," NBER Working Papers 23099, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Conti, Annamaria & Visentin, Fabiana, 2015. "A revealed preference analysis of PhD students’ choices over employment outcomes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1931-1947.
    4. Alfonso Gambardella & Pooyan Khashabi & Claudio Panico, 2020. "Managing Autonomy in Industrial Research and Development: A Project-Level Investigation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 165-181, January.
    5. Hottenrott, Hanna & Lawson, Cornelia, 2014. "Flying the nest: How the home department shapes researchers’ career paths," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201409, University of Turin.
    6. Lawson, Cornelia & Lopes-Bento, Cindy, 2024. "Miss or match? The impact of PhD training on job market satisfaction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    7. Jeongeun Kim & Molly Ott & Lindsey Dippold, 2020. "University and Department Influences on Scientists’ Occupational Outcomes," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 61(2), pages 197-228, March.
    8. Koehler, Maximilian & Sauermann, Henry, 2024. "Algorithmic management in scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).
    9. He, Vivianna Fang & von Krogh, Georg & Sirén, Charlotta & Gersdorf, Thomas, 2021. "Asymmetries between partners and the success of university-industry research collaborations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    10. Sam Arts & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2020. "Taste for science, academic boundary spanning, and inventive performance of scientists and engineers in industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 29(4), pages 917-933.
    11. Michael Roach & Henry Sauermann, 2015. "Founder or Joiner? The Role of Preferences and Context in Shaping Different Entrepreneurial Interests," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(9), pages 2160-2184, September.
    12. Lars P. Feld & Sarah Necker & Bruno S. Frey, 2015. "Happiness of economists," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(10), pages 990-1007, February.
    13. Xiaohua Li & Daozhou Yang & Wu Zhao, 2021. "Scholars’ Identity Transition and Its Impact on Spin-Offs’ R&D Input," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    14. Sauermann, Henry & Roach, Michael, 2014. "Not all scientists pay to be scientists: PhDs’ preferences for publishing in industrial employment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 32-47.
    15. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2024. "Reluctance to pursue breakthrough research: A signaling explanation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).
    16. Wesley M. Cohen & Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2020. "Not in the Job Description: The Commercial Activities of Academic Scientists and Engineers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 4108-4117, September.
    17. Benjamin Balsmeier & Maikel Pellens, 2016. "How much does it cost to be a scientist?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 469-505, June.
    18. Yaqub, Ohid & Coburn, Josie & Moore, Duncan A.Q., 2023. "Knowledge spillovers from HIV research-funding," SocArXiv gcuhn, Center for Open Science.
    19. Wang, Jian & Shibayama, Sotaro, 2022. "Mentorship and creativity: Effects of mentor creativity and mentoring style," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    20. Christiane Bode & Jasjit Singh & Michelle Rogan, 2015. "Corporate Social Initiatives and Employee Retention," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1702-1720, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Academic values; Digital piracy; Misconduct; Psychological contract breach; Sci-Hub;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions

    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:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:9:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05046-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.