Bouter Lex M, Tijdink Joeri, Axelsen Nils, Martinson Brian C, Ter Riet Gerben
1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
2Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016 Nov 21;1:17. doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5. eCollection 2016.
BACKGROUND: Codes of conduct mainly focus on research misconduct that takes the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, at the aggregate level, lesser forms of research misbehavior may be more important due to their much higher prevalence. Little is known about what the most frequent research misbehaviors are and what their impact is if they occur. METHODS: A survey was conducted among 1353 attendees of international research integrity conferences. They were asked to score 60 research misbehaviors according to their views on and perceptions of the frequency of occurrence, preventability, impact on truth (validity), and impact on trust between scientists on 5-point scales. We expressed the aggregate level impact as the product of frequency scores and truth, trust and preventability scores, respectively. We ranked misbehaviors based on mean scores. Additionally, relevant demographic and professional background information was collected from participants. RESULTS: Response was 17% of those who were sent the invitational email and 33% of those who opened it. The rankings suggest that selective reporting, selective citing, and flaws in quality assurance and mentoring are viewed as the major problems of modern research. The "deadly sins" of fabrication and falsification ranked highest on the impact on truth but low to moderate on aggregate level impact on truth, due to their low estimated frequency. Plagiarism is thought to be common but to have little impact on truth although it ranked high on aggregate level impact on trust. CONCLUSIONS: We designed a comprehensive list of 60 major and minor research misbehaviors. Our respondents were much more concerned over sloppy science than about scientific fraud (FFP). In the fostering of responsible conduct of research, we recommend to develop interventions that actively discourage the high ranking misbehaviors from our study.
背景:行为准则主要关注以伪造、篡改和抄袭形式出现的研究不当行为。然而,从总体层面来看,不太严重的研究不当行为可能因其更高的发生率而更为重要。对于最常见的研究不当行为是什么以及它们发生时会产生何种影响,人们知之甚少。 方法:对1353名国际研究诚信会议的参会者进行了一项调查。要求他们根据对60种研究不当行为发生频率、可预防性、对真理(有效性)的影响以及对科学家之间信任的影响的看法和认知,在5分制量表上进行评分。我们分别将总体层面的影响表示为频率得分与真理、信任和可预防性得分的乘积。我们根据平均得分对不当行为进行排名。此外,还从参与者那里收集了相关的人口统计学和专业背景信息。 结果:回复率为收到邀请邮件者的17%,打开邮件者的33%。排名表明,选择性报告、选择性引用以及质量保证和指导方面的缺陷被视为现代研究的主要问题。伪造和篡改这些“严重罪行”在对真理的影响方面排名最高,但由于估计发生频率较低,在总体层面上对真理的影响为低到中等。抄袭被认为很常见,但对真理影响不大,尽管它在总体层面上对信任的影响排名较高。 结论:我们设计了一份包含60种主要和次要研究不当行为的综合清单。我们的受访者对草率的科学行为比科学欺诈(伪造、篡改和抄袭)更为关注。在促进负责任的研究行为方面,我们建议制定干预措施,积极劝阻我们研究中排名靠前的不当行为。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006-3
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019-12-2
J Dent Res. 1996-2
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021-12-21
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-4-4
Ethics Inf Technol. 2025
Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2025-1-9
Sci Eng Ethics. 2024-4-3
Sci Eng Ethics. 2024-2-13
R Soc Open Sci. 2016-9-21
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-4-4
J Clin Invest. 2015-11-2
PLoS Biol. 2015-10-2
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015-10
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014-7
Account Res. 2015
PLoS Med. 2014-10-21
Lancet. 2013-3-30