Spanish Scientists’ Opinion about Science and Researcher Behavior

José Perezgonzalez,Dolores Frias-Navarro,Marcos Pascual-Soler,Juan Pascual-Llobell,Héctor Monterde-i-Bort

doi:10.1017/sjp.2020.59

Abstract

We surveyed 348 Psychology and Education researchers within Spain, on issues such as their perception of a crisis in Science, their confidence in the quality of published results, and the use of questionable research practices (QRP). Their perceptions regarding pressure to publish and academic competition were also collected. The results indicate that a large proportion of the sample of Spanish academics think there is a crisis in Science, mainly due to a lack of economic investment, and doubts the quality of published findings. They also feel strong pressure to publish in high impact factor journals and a highly competitive work climate.

Highlights

The analysis of questionable research practices is a topic that has aroused considerable interest since the beginning of the 21st century, due to its link to the controversy of the so-called crisis in Science, a controversy that is directly related to the debate on the lack of replication of published findings (Baker, 2016; Benjamin et al, 2017; Fanelli, 2018; Frias-Navarro et al, 2020; Ioannidis, 2005, 2019; Kerr, 1998)
The study of questionable research practices can be framed in the area of scientific integrity and ethics, within a climate of perverse and hyper-competitive incentives, which Edwards and Roy (2017) describe as a corrupt academic culture
As Nosek et al (2012) point out, the professional success of an academic scientist depends on publication, and publication standards support novel and positive results, generating incentives that skew publications and, at the same time, the researcher’s conduct

Summary

Introduction

The analysis of questionable research practices is a topic that has aroused considerable interest since the beginning of the 21st century, due to its link to the controversy of the so-called crisis in Science, a controversy that is directly related to the debate on the lack of replication of published findings (Baker, 2016; Benjamin et al, 2017; Fanelli, 2018; Frias-Navarro et al, 2020; Ioannidis, 2005, 2019; Kerr, 1998). Given that researchers have a certain degree of flexibility throughout the research design process, some of these decisions may be directed at making the finding match the researcher’s wish (e.g., a statistically significant result in support of a hypothesis or a non-significant one supporting the assumptions of a statistical procedure), increasing the likelihood that a paper with this result will be published (Blanco et al, 2017; Matthes et al, 2015) Such practices may occur with or without intent to deceive (Banks, O’Boyle, et al, 2016; Banks, Rogelberg, et al, 2016). Banks, Rogelberg, et al (2016) differentiate between practices that pose no problems, practices that imply suboptimal usage but are not overly problematic, and QRPs that pose a serious threat to the inferences made based on the results reported

Methods

Results

Conclusion