Abstract
BackgroundResearch on research integrity has tended to focus on frequency of research misconduct and factors that might induce someone to commit research misconduct. A definitive answer to the first question has been elusive, but it remains clear that any research misconduct is too much. Answers to the second question are so diverse, it might be productive to ask a different question: What about how research is done allows research misconduct to occur?MethodsWith that question in mind, research integrity officers (RIOs) of the 62 members of the American Association of Universities were invited to complete a brief survey about their most recent instance of a finding of research misconduct. Respondents were asked whether one or more good practices of research (e.g., openness and transparency, keeping good research records) were present in their case of research misconduct.ResultsTwenty-four (24) of the respondents (39% response rate) indicated they had dealt with at least one finding of research misconduct and answered the survey questions. Over half of these RIOs reported that their case of research misconduct had occurred in an environment in which at least nine of the ten listed good practices of research were deficient.ConclusionsThese results are not evidence for a causal effect of poor practices, but it is arguable that committing research misconduct would be more difficult if not impossible in research environments adhering to good practices of research.
Highlights
Much of the literature on research misconduct has focused on the question of why a researcher might choose to engage in “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism” (e.g., U.S definition of research misconduct [1])
In a previous survey, as many as 1 in 3 researchers self-reported having engaged in serious misbehaviors, which included examples of research misconduct [3], perhaps an expected outcome of the research environment
The survey was designed to request perceptions of the extent to which research misconduct occurred in the context of good practices of research
Summary
Much of the literature on research misconduct has focused on the question of why a researcher might choose to engage in “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism” (e.g., U.S definition of research misconduct [1]). Fanelli et al [8] concluded based on a Kalichman Research Integrity and Peer Review (2020) 5:17 retrospective meta-analysis of retractions that pressures to publish were less predictive of research misconduct than a variety of other environmental factors. A definitive answer to the first question has been elusive, but it remains clear that any research misconduct is too much. Answers to the second question are so diverse, it might be productive to ask a different question: What about how research is done allows research misconduct to occur?
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.
