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.
Highlights
We focus on the National Survey on Research Integrity (NSRI) results on questionable research practices (QRPs), FF and postulated explanatory factors
Further breakdown by disciplinary field, academic rank, research type and institutional support is detailed in S1 Table
Respondents from supporting and non-supporting institutions are fairly evenly distributed across disciplinary fields and academic ranks, except for the natural and engineering sciences where less than one in four
Summary
The basis of sound public policy relies on trustworthy and high quality research [1]. This trust is earned by being transparent and by performing research that is relevant, replicable, ethically sound and of rigorous methodological quality. Trust in research and replicability of previous findings [2] are compromised by researchers engaging in research misconduct, such as fabrication and falsification (FF) and subtle trespasses of ethical and methodological principles [3]. Continued efforts to promote responsible research practices (RRPs) which include open science practices like open data sharing, pre-registration of study protocols, open access publication over questionable research practices (QRPs) are needed. In order to support the need for such continued efforts, solid evidence on the prevalence of research misconduct and QRPs as well as the factors promoting or curtailing such behaviours are needed. After several major cases of misconduct [4], the global research community is converging to a common view on ways to foster research integrity [5]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
