文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

对主要和次要研究不当行为进行排名:来自四次世界研究诚信大会参与者的调查结果。

Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity.

作者信息

Bouter Lex M, Tijdink Joeri, Axelsen Nils, Martinson Brian C, Ter Riet Gerben

机构信息

1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

2Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016 Nov 21;1:17. doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5. eCollection 2016.


DOI:10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5
PMID:29451551
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5803629/
Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

相似文献

[1]
Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity.

Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016-11-21

[2]
Normal Misbehavior: Scientists Talk about the Ethics of Research.

J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006-3

[3]
How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A case study of Indian researchers.

Account Res. 2023-12

[4]
Researchers' perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam.

Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019-12-2

[5]
New Classification of Research Misconduct from the Viewpoint of Truth, Trust, and Risk.

Account Res. 2018

[6]
Survey of ethical issues in dental research.

J Dent Res. 1996-2

[7]
Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers.

Sci Eng Ethics. 2021-12-21

[8]
Research Misconduct in the Croatian Scientific Community: A Survey Assessing the Forms and Characteristics of Research Misconduct.

Sci Eng Ethics. 2017-2

[9]
Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-4-4

[10]
How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A transcultural case study of Chinese and Flemish researchers.

Account Res. 2018-8-27

引用本文的文献

[1]
A critique of current approaches to privacy in machine learning.

Ethics Inf Technol. 2025

[2]
Aligning Scientific Values and Research Integrity: A Study of Researchers' Perceptions and Practices in Four Countries.

Sci Eng Ethics. 2025-6-2

[3]
Hyper-ambition and the Replication Crisis: Why Measures to Promote Research Integrity can Falter.

J Acad Ethics. 2025

[4]
Building Credibility with Comprehensive Citation Practices.

Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2025-1-9

[5]
Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Cross-national evidence for widespread involvement but not systematic use of questionable research practices across all fields of research.

PLoS One. 2024

[6]
The effectiveness of out-of-hours palliative care telephone advice lines: A rapid systematic review.

Palliat Med. 2024-6

[7]
Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies.

Sci Eng Ethics. 2024-4-3

[8]
How Competition for Funding Impacts Scientific Practice: Building Pre-fab Houses but no Cathedrals.

Sci Eng Ethics. 2024-2-13

[9]
Questionable research practices in competitive grant funding: A survey.

PLoS One. 2023

[10]
Academic integrity among nursing students: A survey of knowledge and behavior.

Nurs Ethics. 2024-6

本文引用的文献

[1]
The natural selection of bad science.

R Soc Open Sci. 2016-9-21

[2]
Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-4-4

[3]
Dishonesty in scientific research.

J Clin Invest. 2015-11-2

[4]
Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices.

PLoS Biol. 2015-10-2

[5]
Scientific Dishonesty: A Survey of Doctoral Students at the Major Medical Faculties in Sweden and Norway.

J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015-10

[6]
Heterogeneity in European research integrity guidance: relying on values or norms?

J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014-7

[7]
Commentary: Perverse incentives or rotten apples?

Account Res. 2015

[8]
How to make more published research true.

PLoS Med. 2014-10-21

[9]
Assessing value in biomedical research: the PQRST of appraisal and reward.

JAMA. 2014-8-6

[10]
Guidance on research integrity: no union in Europe.

Lancet. 2013-3-30

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索