Scientific misconduct: A cross-sectional study of the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers
- PMID: 37995199
- DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2284965
Scientific misconduct: A cross-sectional study of the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers
Abstract
This study sought to identify the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers regarding different aspects relating to scientific misconduct, both overall and by gender, years of research experience, and type of research institution. This is a cross-sectional study based on an anonymous online survey, targeting researchers in the field of biomedicine. The survey comprised a first block (13 questions) covering sociodemographic data, and a second block (14 questions) covering researchers' perceptions, attitudes and experiences. A descriptive analysis was performed. 403 researchers answered the survey: 51.1% (n = 205) women, median age 45 years. The observed frequency of scientific misconduct was 78.8%. Additionally, 43.3% of researchers acknowledged having intentionally engaged in some type of scientific misconduct (self-reported frequency). The most frequent type of scientific misconduct was false authorship. The most frequent types of both observed and self-reported scientific misconduct did not appear to differ by years of experience but did differ by gender and type of research institution. In conclusion, there is a high frequency of scientific misconduct among Spanish biomedical science researchers as 4 of 10 researchers recognized that took part in any type of scientific misconduct. There are differences between the most frequent types of misconduct according to different characteristics, mainly type of institution.
Keywords: Scientific integrity; Spain; perception; scientific misconduct; survey.
Similar articles
-
Perceptions of Chinese Biomedical Researchers Towards Academic Misconduct: A Comparison Between 2015 and 2010.Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Apr;24(2):629-645. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9913-3. Epub 2017 Apr 10. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018. PMID: 28397174
-
Misconduct in research: a descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country.BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Mar 25;15:25. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-25. BMC Med Ethics. 2014. PMID: 24666413 Free PMC article.
-
Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: a national survey.J Med Ethics. 2007 Jun;33(6):365-9. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.016394. J Med Ethics. 2007. PMID: 17526690 Free PMC article.
-
Integrity in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review of Studies in China.Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Aug;25(4):1271-1301. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0057-x. Epub 2018 May 2. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019. PMID: 29721845
-
Publication ethics: Role and responsibility of authors.Indian J Gastroenterol. 2021 Feb;40(1):65-71. doi: 10.1007/s12664-020-01129-5. Epub 2021 Jan 22. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2021. PMID: 33481172 Free PMC article. Review.
References
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources