Lex M. Bouter, Gerben ter Riet, Guy Widdershoven, H. Roeline Pasman, Joeri K. Tijdink & Tamarinde L. Haven
Research Integrity and Peer Review 4 (1) (2019)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
BackgroundThere is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields.MethodsWe used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental.ResultsIn total, 1080 researchers completed the survey and 61 participated in the focus groups. Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher.ConclusionWe found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted ‘insufficient supervision’. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories |
No categories specified (categorize this paper) |
ISBN(s) | |
DOI | 10.1186/s41073-019-0081-7 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity.Lex Bouter - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (4):2363-2369.
Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers’ Perceptions in Spain.Ramón A. Feenstra, Emilio Delgado López-Cózar & Daniel Pallarés-Domínguez - 2021 - Science and Engineering Ethics 27 (1):1-21.
Explanations of Research Misconduct, and How They Hang Together.Tamarinde Haven & René van Woudenberg - 2021 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 52 (4):543-561.
Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research.Mads P. Sørensen & Tine Ravn - 2021 - Science and Engineering Ethics 27 (4):1-33.
Similar books and articles
Ranking Major and Minor Research Misbehaviors: Results From a Survey Among Participants of Four World Conferences on Research Integrity.Gerben ter Riet, Brian C. Martinson, Nils Axelsen, Joeri Tijdink & Lex M. Bouter - 2016 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 1 (1).
A Review of the Types of Scientific Misconduct in Biomedical Research. [REVIEW]Malhar N. Kumar - 2008 - Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (3):211-228.
Academic Mobility in the Context of Linked Lives.Marta Vohlídalová - 2014 - Human Affairs 24 (1):89-102.
In Their Own Words: Research Misconduct From the Perspective of Researchers in Malaysian Universities.Angelina P. Olesen, Latifah Amin & Zurina Mahadi - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (6):1755-1776.
Discipline Matters: Technology Use in the Humanities.Ellen Collins, Monica E. Bulger & Eric T. Meyer - 2012 - Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 11 (1-2):76-92.
The Future of Educational Research in the Context of the Social Sciences: A Special Case?Rosemary Deem - 1996 - British Journal of Educational Studies 44 (2):143-158.
The Future of Educational Research in the Context of the Social Sciences: A Special Case?Rosemary Deem - 1996 - British Journal of Educational Studies 44 (2):143-158.
How Do Researchers Acquire and Develop Notions of Research Integrity? A Qualitative Study Among Biomedical Researchers in Switzerland.Priya Satalkar & David Shaw - 2019 - BMC Medical Ethics 20 (1):1-12.
Speaking From the Inside: Challenges Faced by Communication Researchers Investigating Disease-Related Issues in a Hospital Setting.Céline Bourquin, Friedrich Stiefel & Pascal Singy - 2015 - Journal of Medical Humanities 36 (3):251-255.
Differing Perceptions Concerning Research Integrity Between Universities and Industry: A Qualitative Study.Simon Godecharle, Benoit Nemery & Kris Dierickx - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (5):1421-1436.
What Does 'Respect for Persons' Require? Attitudes and Reported Practices of Genetics Researchers in Informing Research Participants About Research.F. A. Miller, R. Z. Hayeems, L. Li & J. P. Bytautas - 2012 - Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (1):48-52.
Ethical Complexities in Child Co-Research.Merle Spriggs & Lynn Gillam - 2017 - Research Ethics 15 (1):1-16.
The ‘Negotiated Space’ of University Researchers’ Pursuit of a Research Agenda.Terttu Luukkonen & Duncan A. Thomas - 2016 - Minerva 54 (1):99-127.
Supervision, Mentorship and Peer Networks: How Estonian Early Career Researchers Get (or Fail to Get) Support.Jaana Eigi, Katrin Velbaum, Endla Lõhkivi, Kadri Simm & Kristin Kokkov - 2018 - RT. A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation 6 (1):01-16.
Unable to Resist: Researchers’ Responses to Research Assessment in the Czech Republic.Marcela Linkova - 2014 - Human Affairs 24 (1):78-88.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2020-02-03
Total views
2 ( #1,442,191 of 2,498,786 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #421,542 of 2,498,786 )
2020-02-03
Total views
2 ( #1,442,191 of 2,498,786 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #421,542 of 2,498,786 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads