Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
F1000Res. 2022 Apr 28;11:471. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.110664.2. eCollection 2022.
Traditionally, research integrity studies have focused on research misbehaviors and their explanations. Over time, attention has shifted towards preventing questionable research practices and promoting responsible ones. However, data on the prevalence of responsible research practices, especially open methods, open codes and open data and their underlying associative factors, remains scarce. We conducted a web-based anonymized questionnaire, targeting all academic researchers working at or affiliated to a university or university medical center in The Netherlands, to investigate the prevalence and potential explanatory factors of 11 responsible research practices. A total of 6,813 academics completed the survey, the results of which show that prevalence of responsible practices differs substantially across disciplines and ranks, with 99 percent avoiding plagiarism in their work but less than 50 percent pre-registering a research protocol. Arts and humanities scholars as well as PhD candidates and junior researchers engaged less often in responsible research practices. Publication pressure negatively affected responsible practices, while mentoring, scientific norms subscription and funding pressure stimulated them. Understanding the prevalence of responsible research practices across disciplines and ranks, as well as their associated explanatory factors, can help to systematically address disciplinary- and academic rank-specific obstacles, and thereby facilitate responsible conduct of research.
传统上，研究诚信研究侧重于研究不当行为及其解释。随着时间的推移，人们的注意力逐渐转向防止有问题的研究实践和促进负责任的研究实践。然而，关于负责任的研究实践（尤其是开放方法、开放代码和开放数据）的流行程度及其潜在的关联因素的数据仍然很少。我们进行了一项基于网络的匿名问卷调查，针对在荷兰的大学或大学医学中心工作或附属的所有学术研究人员，调查了 11 种负责任的研究实践的流行程度及其潜在的解释因素。共有 6813 名学者完成了这项调查，结果表明，负责任的实践在不同学科和职称中存在显著差异，99%的人在工作中避免抄袭，但只有不到 50%的人预先注册研究方案。艺术和人文学科的学者以及博士生和初级研究人员参与负责任的研究实践的频率较低。发表压力对负责任的实践产生负面影响，而指导、科学规范认同和资金压力则促进了负责任的实践。了解负责任的研究实践在不同学科和职称中的流行程度及其相关的解释因素，可以帮助系统地解决学科和学术职称特定的障碍，从而促进负责任的研究行为。
