挪威研究人员中存在可疑的研究行为和不当行为。
Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers.
机构信息
Center for the Study of the Sciences and Humanities, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Department of Sociology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
出版信息
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Dec 21;28(1):2. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00351-4.
Abstract
This article presents results from the national survey conducted in 2018 for the project Research Integrity in Norway (RINO). A total of 31,206 questionnaires were sent out to Norwegian researchers by e-mail, and 7291 responses were obtained. In this paper, we analyse the survey data to determine attitudes towards and the prevalence of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) and contrast this with attitudes towards and the prevalence of the more questionable research practices (QRPs) surveyed. Our results show a relatively low percentage of self-reported FFPs (0.2-0.3%), while the number of researchers who report having committed one of the QRPs during the last three years reached a troublesome 40%. The article also presents a ranking of the perceived severity of FFP and QRPs among Norwegian researchers. Overall, there is a widespread normative consensus, where FFP is considered more troublesome than QRPs.
摘要
本文呈现了 2018 年在挪威研究诚信项目（RINO）中进行的全国调查的结果。通过电子邮件向挪威研究人员发送了总计 31206 份问卷，共收到 7291 份回复。在本文中，我们分析了调查数据，以确定对伪造、篡改和剽窃（FFP）的态度和流行程度，并将其与对更有问题的研究实践（QRPs）的态度和流行程度进行对比。我们的结果显示，自我报告的 FFP 相对较低（0.2-0.3%），而在过去三年中报告曾从事过一种 QRPs 的研究人员数量达到了令人不安的 40%。本文还列出了挪威研究人员对 FFP 和 QRPs 的感知严重程度的排名。总体而言，存在广泛的规范共识，其中 FFP 被认为比 QRPs 更麻烦。
相似文献
1
Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers.挪威研究人员中存在可疑的研究行为和不当行为。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Dec 21;28(1):2. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00351-4.
2
Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.科研不端行为和可疑研究实践的流行率：系统评价和荟萃分析。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Jun 29;27(4):41. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9.
3
Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research.探索灰色地带：各主要研究领域可疑研究行为（QRPs）的异同
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Jun 16;27(4):40. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00310-z.
4
Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands.可疑研究行为、研究不端行为及其潜在解释因素的流行程度：荷兰学术研究人员的调查。
PLoS One. 2022 Feb 16;17(2):e0263023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263023. eCollection 2022.
5
What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity.研究机构可以采取哪些措施来培养研究诚信
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Aug;26(4):2363-2369. doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00178-5. Epub 2020 Jan 21.
6
In Defense of the Questionable: Defining the Basis of Research Scientists' Engagement in Questionable Research Practices.为有争议之事辩护：界定科研人员参与有争议研究行为的依据
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2018 Feb;13(1):101-110. doi: 10.1177/1556264617743834. Epub 2017 Nov 28.
7
Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers' Perceptions in Spain.伦理与哲学领域的研究不当行为：西班牙研究人员的看法。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Jan 25;27(1):1. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00278-w.
8
Defining and Handling Research Misconduct: A Comparison Between Chinese and European Institutional Policies.界定和处理科研不端行为：中、欧机构政策比较。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020 Oct;15(4):302-319. doi: 10.1177/1556264620927628. Epub 2020 Jul 2.
9
Criminalization of scientific misconduct.科研不端行为的刑事定罪。
Med Health Care Philos. 2019 Jun;22(2):245-252. doi: 10.1007/s11019-018-9865-7.
10
How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A case study of Indian researchers.研究人员如何看待研究不当行为？以印度研究人员为例的一项案例研究。
Account Res. 2023 Dec;30(8):707-724. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2022.2078712. Epub 2022 May 25.
引用本文的文献
1
Citation Ethics: An Exploratory Survey of Norms and Behaviors.引用伦理：对规范与行为的探索性调查
J Acad Ethics. 2025 Jun;23(2):329-346. doi: 10.1007/s10805-024-09539-2. Epub 2024 Jun 5.
2
Indirect feedback as a tool for identifying academic misconduct: a cross-sectional multicentral study among medical students.间接反馈作为识别学术不端行为的工具：一项针对医学生的横断面多中心研究。
BMC Med Educ. 2025 Jul 1;25(1):897. doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07444-9.
3
Aligning Scientific Values and Research Integrity: A Study of Researchers' Perceptions and Practices in Four Countries.协调科学价值观与研究诚信：对四个国家研究人员认知与实践的一项研究
Sci Eng Ethics. 2025 Jun 2;31(3):15. doi: 10.1007/s11948-025-00539-y.
4
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.丹麦国内是否存在腐败现象？跨国证据表明，所有研究领域都广泛存在但并非系统使用有问题的研究做法。
PLoS One. 2024 Aug 12;19(8):e0304342. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304342. eCollection 2024.
5
Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies.促进数据共享：公共资助机构的道德义务。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2024 Aug 6;30(4):35. doi: 10.1007/s11948-024-00491-3.
6
Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices About Research Integrity and Scientific Misconduct Among the Faculty and Medical Postgraduates Working in Medical Colleges in North Karnataka and Central India: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey.印度北部卡纳塔克邦和中部医学院教职工及医学研究生对研究诚信和科学不端行为的认知、态度及行为：一项横断面在线调查
Cureus. 2024 Apr 28;16(4):e59200. doi: 10.7759/cureus.59200. eCollection 2024 Apr.
7
Knowledge, attitudes and practices about research misconduct among medical residents in southwest China: a cross-sectional study.中国西南地区住院医师对科研不端行为的认知、态度和实践：一项横断面研究。
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Mar 14;24(1):284. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-05277-6.
8
How Competition for Funding Impacts Scientific Practice: Building Pre-fab Houses but no Cathedrals.经费竞争如何影响科学实践：建造预制房屋而非大教堂。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2024 Feb 13;30(1):6. doi: 10.1007/s11948-024-00465-5.
9
Researchers on research integrity: a survey of European and American researchers.研究诚信研究人员：欧美研究人员的调查。
F1000Res. 2023 Feb 16;12:187. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.128733.1. eCollection 2023.
10
Valuable unintended learning outcomes when practicum for student teachers in kindergartens is carried out online.幼儿园实习教师在线开展实习时产生的宝贵的非预期学习成果。
Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2023;28(1):37-55. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11135-z. Epub 2022 Jun 10.
本文引用的文献
1
Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands.可疑研究行为、研究不端行为及其潜在解释因素的流行程度：荷兰学术研究人员的调查。
PLoS One. 2022 Feb 16;17(2):e0263023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263023. eCollection 2022.
2
Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.科研不端行为和可疑研究实践的流行率：系统评价和荟萃分析。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Jun 29;27(4):41. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9.
3
Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers' Perceptions in Spain.伦理与哲学领域的研究不当行为：西班牙研究人员的看法。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Jan 25;27(1):1. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00278-w.
4
Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science.合作科学中与作者分歧相关的不当行为和不端行为。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Aug;26(4):1967-1993. doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00112-4. Epub 2019 Jun 3.
5
Perceptions of research integrity climate differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields: Results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam.学术研究人员在科研诚信氛围方面的感知因学术等级和学科领域而异：来自阿姆斯特丹学术研究人员调查的结果。
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 18;14(1):e0210599. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210599. eCollection 2019.
6
Working with Research Integrity-Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement.《研究诚信工作指南：研究执行组织》：波恩 PRINTEGER 声明。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Aug;24(4):1023-1034. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0034-4. Epub 2018 May 31.
7
A Cross-Sectional Survey Study to Assess Prevalence and Attitudes Regarding Research Misconduct among Investigators in the Middle East.一项横断面调查研究，旨在评估中东地区研究人员中科研不端行为的发生率及态度。
J Acad Ethics. 2018 Mar;16(1):71-87. doi: 10.1007/s10805-017-9295-9. Epub 2017 Oct 13.
8
The Quest for Clarity in Research Integrity: A Conceptual Schema.追求研究诚信的清晰性：概念框架。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Aug;25(4):1085-1093. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0052-2. Epub 2018 Mar 28.
9
Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity.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。
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016 Nov 21;1:17. doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5. eCollection 2016.
10
Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research.学术研究中的作者身份与引用操纵。
PLoS One. 2017 Dec 6;12(12):e0187394. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187394. eCollection 2017.
Zotero 插件