Department of Methodology, London School of Economics and Political Science, Columbia House, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, P.O. Box 905, 2300 AX, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Jun;25(3):771-789. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0023-7. Epub 2018 Feb 19.
It is commonly hypothesized that scientists are more likely to engage in data falsification and fabrication when they are subject to pressures to publish, when they are not restrained by forms of social control, when they work in countries lacking policies to tackle scientific misconduct, and when they are male. Evidence to test these hypotheses, however, is inconclusive due to the difficulties of obtaining unbiased data. Here we report a pre-registered test of these four hypotheses, conducted on papers that were identified in a previous study as containing problematic image duplications through a systematic screening of the journal PLoS ONE. Image duplications were classified into three categories based on their complexity, with category 1 being most likely to reflect unintentional error and category 3 being most likely to reflect intentional fabrication. We tested multiple parameters connected to the hypotheses above with a matched-control paradigm, by collecting two controls for each paper containing duplications. Category 1 duplications were mostly not associated with any of the parameters tested, as was predicted based on the assumption that these duplications were mostly not due to misconduct. Categories 2 and 3, however, exhibited numerous statistically significant associations. Results of univariable and multivariable analyses support the hypotheses that academic culture, peer control, cash-based publication incentives and national misconduct policies might affect scientific integrity. No clear support was found for the "pressures to publish" hypothesis. Female authors were found to be equally likely to publish duplicated images compared to males. Country-level parameters generally exhibited stronger effects than individual-level parameters, because developing countries were significantly more likely to produce problematic image duplications. This suggests that promoting good research practices in all countries should be a priority for the international research integrity agenda.
人们普遍假设，如果科学家面临发表压力，不受社会控制形式的约束，在缺乏应对科学不端行为政策的国家工作，并且是男性，他们更有可能伪造和篡改数据。然而，由于难以获得无偏数据，这些假设的证据尚无定论。在这里，我们对这四个假设进行了预先注册的检验，这些假设是基于之前对 PLoS ONE 杂志进行系统筛查发现的有问题图像重复的研究中提出的。根据其复杂性，将图像重复分为三个类别，其中类别 1 最有可能反映无意错误，而类别 3 最有可能反映故意伪造。我们通过收集每个包含重复的论文的两份对照来测试与上述假设相关的多个参数，采用匹配对照范式。基于这些重复大多不是由于不当行为的假设，类别 1 的重复与测试的任何参数大多没有关联。然而，类别 2 和 3 则表现出许多具有统计学意义的关联。单变量和多变量分析的结果支持学术文化、同行控制、基于现金的出版激励和国家不当行为政策可能影响科学诚信的假设。“发表压力”假设没有得到明确支持。与男性相比，女性作者同样有可能发表重复的图像。国家层面的参数通常比个人层面的参数表现出更强的影响，因为发展中国家更有可能产生有问题的图像重复。这表明，促进所有国家的良好研究实践应该是国际研究诚信议程的优先事项。
