Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture
- PMID: 39397013
- PMCID: PMC11472529
- DOI: 10.1186/s41073-024-00151-x
Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture
Abstract
Background: This study investigates the determinants of engagement in questionable research practices (QRPs), focusing on both individual-level factors (such as scholarly field, commitment to scientific norms, gender, contract type, and career stage) and institution-level factors (including industry type, researchers' perceptions of their research culture, and awareness of institutional policies on research integrity).
Methods: Using a multi-level modelling approach, we analyse data from an international survey of researchers working across disciplinary fields to estimate the effect of these factors on QRP engagement.
Results: Our findings indicate that contract type, career stage, academic field, adherence to scientific norms and gender significantly predict QRP engagement. At the institution level, factors such as being outside of a collegial culture and experiencing harmful publication pressure, and the presence of safeguards against integrity breaches have small associations. Only a minimal amount of variance in QRP engagement is attributable to differences between institutions and countries.
Conclusions: We discuss the implications of these findings for developing effective interventions to reduce QRPs, highlighting the importance of addressing both individual and institutional factors in efforts to foster research integrity.
Keywords: Questionable Research Practices; Research Integrity; Scientific Norms.
© 2024. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Figures
References
-
- John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science. 2012;23(5):524–32. 10.1177/0956797611430953. - PubMed
-
- Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 2011;22(11):1359–66. 10.1177/0956797611417632. - PubMed
-
- Bakker M, van Dijk A, Wicherts JM. The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012;7(6):543–54. 10.1177/1745691612459060. - PubMed
-
- LeBel EP, Borsboom D, Giner-Sorolla R, Hasselman F, Peters KR, Ratliff KA, Smith CT. PsychDisclosure.org: grassroots support for reforming reporting standards in psychology. Perspect Psycholog Sci. 2013;8(4):424–32. 10.1177/1745691613491437. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
