Developing Surveys on Questionable Research Practices: Four Challenging Design Problems

IF 2.2 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Academic Ethics Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI:10.1007/s10805-024-09565-0
Christian Berggren, Bengt Gerdin, Solmaz Filiz Karabag
{"title":"Developing Surveys on Questionable Research Practices: Four Challenging Design Problems","authors":"Christian Berggren, Bengt Gerdin, Solmaz Filiz Karabag","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09565-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The exposure of scientific scandals and the increase of dubious research practices have generated a stream of studies on Questionable Research Practices (QRPs), such as failure to acknowledge co-authors, selective presentation of findings, or removal of data not supporting desired outcomes. In contrast to high-profile fraud cases, QRPs can be investigated using quantitative, survey-based methods. However, several design issues remain to be solved. This paper starts with a review of four problems in the QRP research: the problem of precision and prevalence, the problem of social desirability bias, the problem of incomplete coverage, and the problem of controversiality, sensitivity and missing responses. Various ways to handle these problems are discussed based on a case study of the design of a large, cross-field QRP survey in the social and medical sciences in Sweden. The paper describes the key steps in the design process, including technical and cognitive testing and repeated test versions to arrive at reliable survey items on the prevalence of QRPs and hypothesized associated factors in the organizational and normative environments. Partial solutions to the four problems are assessed, unresolved issues are discussed, and tradeoffs that resist simple solutions are articulated. The paper ends with a call for systematic comparisons of survey designs and item quality to build a much-needed cumulative knowledge trajectory in the field of integrity studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Academic Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09565-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The exposure of scientific scandals and the increase of dubious research practices have generated a stream of studies on Questionable Research Practices (QRPs), such as failure to acknowledge co-authors, selective presentation of findings, or removal of data not supporting desired outcomes. In contrast to high-profile fraud cases, QRPs can be investigated using quantitative, survey-based methods. However, several design issues remain to be solved. This paper starts with a review of four problems in the QRP research: the problem of precision and prevalence, the problem of social desirability bias, the problem of incomplete coverage, and the problem of controversiality, sensitivity and missing responses. Various ways to handle these problems are discussed based on a case study of the design of a large, cross-field QRP survey in the social and medical sciences in Sweden. The paper describes the key steps in the design process, including technical and cognitive testing and repeated test versions to arrive at reliable survey items on the prevalence of QRPs and hypothesized associated factors in the organizational and normative environments. Partial solutions to the four problems are assessed, unresolved issues are discussed, and tradeoffs that resist simple solutions are articulated. The paper ends with a call for systematic comparisons of survey designs and item quality to build a much-needed cumulative knowledge trajectory in the field of integrity studies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
就有问题的研究实践开展调查:四个具有挑战性的设计问题
科学丑闻的曝光和可疑研究实践的增加,催生了一系列关于可疑研究实践(QRPs)的研究,如不承认共同作者、有选择性地介绍研究结果或删除不支持预期结果的数据。与备受瞩目的欺诈案件不同,QRP 可以使用定量、基于调查的方法进行调查。然而,仍有几个设计问题有待解决。本文首先回顾了量化项目研究中的四个问题:精确性和普遍性问题、社会期望偏差问题、覆盖面不全问题以及争议性、敏感性和缺失答复问题。本文以瑞典社会科学和医学领域大型跨领域 QRP 调查的设计案例研究为基础,讨论了处理这些问题的各种方法。论文介绍了设计过程中的关键步骤,包括技术和认知测试以及重复测试版本,以获得可靠的调查项目,了解 QRP 的普遍程度以及组织和规范环境中的假设相关因素。本文评估了四个问题的部分解决方案,讨论了尚未解决的问题,并阐明了阻碍简单解决方案的权衡因素。文章最后呼吁对调查设计和项目质量进行系统比较,以便在诚信研究领域建立一个急需的知识积累轨迹。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Journal of Academic Ethics is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary, peer reviewed journal which examines all ethical issues which arise within the scope of university purposes. The journal publishes original research in the ethics of research production and publication; teaching and student relations; leadership; management and governance. The journal offers sustained inquiry into such topics as the ethics of university strategic directions; ethical investments; sustainability practices; the responsible conduct of research and teaching; collegiality and faculty relations; and the appropriate models of ethical and accountable governance for universities in the 21st century.
期刊最新文献
Developing Student Agency Towards Academic Integrity Through an Educative Approach: Exploring Students’ Experiences and Perspectives Fabricating Citations: The Policies of New Jersey Public Institutions of Higher Education Developing Surveys on Questionable Research Practices: Four Challenging Design Problems Testing a Psychological Model of Post-Pandemic Academic Cheating Why Student Ratings of Faculty Are Unethical
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1