Abstract
Misconduct in academic research is undoubtedly increasing, but studies estimating the prevalence of such behaviour suffer from biases inherent in researching sensitive topics. We compared the unmatched-count technique (UCT) and the crosswise-model (CM), two methods specifically designed to increase honest reporting to sensitive questions, with direct questioning (DQ) for five types of misconduct in the biological sciences. UCT performed better than CM and either outperformed or produced similar estimates to DQ depending on the question. Estimates of academic misconduct increased with decreasing seriousness of the behaviour, from c. 0% for data fabrication to >68% for inappropriate co-authorship. Results show that research into even minor issues of misconduct, is sensitive, suggesting that future studies should consider using specialised questioning techniques as they are more likely to yield accurate figures.
Highlights
Misconduct by academics is reportedly increasing (Steen, Casadevall & Fang, 2013), and known cases represent only the “tip-of-the-iceberg” (Fanelli, 2009)
Direct questioning To explore the relative utility of unmatched-count technique (UCT) and CM compared with direct questioning (DQ), respondents were directly asked to indicate their involvement in each of the academic misconduct behaviours
Our analysis yielded values of 0.0% and 1.1% for fabrication of data and plagiarism respectively when based on direct questioning
Summary
Misconduct by academics is reportedly increasing (Steen, Casadevall & Fang, 2013), and known cases represent only the “tip-of-the-iceberg” (Fanelli, 2009). Deviant research behaviour is detrimental to the individual, and to society, as fraudulent research can misdirect future research, funding and policy It disadvantages compliant academics and, when unchecked, can result in a perception that the easiest way to progress in academia is to cheat (Casadevall & Fang, 2012). Methods have been developed for estimating the prevalence of sensitive behaviours These methods are intended to encourage more truthful reporting by providing respondents with levels of protection greater than guarantees of anonymity; critically, these methods make it impossible to directly link answers to individuals. We apply direct questioning and two specialised methods in order to estimate the prevalence of research misconduct amongst UK academics currently conducting research within biological sciences
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
