Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam.

IF 10.7 Q1 ETHICS Research integrity and peer review Pub Date : 2021-05-03 DOI:10.1186/s41073-021-00110-w
Tamarinde Haven, Joeri Tijdink, Brian Martinson, Lex Bouter, Frans Oort
{"title":"Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam.","authors":"Tamarinde Haven,&nbsp;Joeri Tijdink,&nbsp;Brian Martinson,&nbsp;Lex Bouter,&nbsp;Frans Oort","doi":"10.1186/s41073-021-00110-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Concerns about research misbehavior in academic science have sparked interest in the factors that may explain research misbehavior. Often three clusters of factors are distinguished: individual factors, climate factors and publication factors. Our research question was: to what extent can individual, climate and publication factors explain the variance in frequently perceived research misbehaviors?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From May 2017 until July 2017, we conducted a survey study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. The survey included three measurement instruments that we previously reported individual results of and here we integrate these findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One thousand two hundred ninety-eight researchers completed the survey (response rate: 17%). Results showed that individual, climate and publication factors combined explained 34% of variance in perceived frequency of research misbehavior. Individual factors explained 7%, climate factors explained 22% and publication factors 16%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results suggest that the perceptions of the research climate play a substantial role in explaining variance in research misbehavior. This suggests that efforts to improve departmental norms might have a salutary effect on behavior.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"6 1","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":10.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-021-00110-w","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00110-w","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: 1

Abstract

Background: Concerns about research misbehavior in academic science have sparked interest in the factors that may explain research misbehavior. Often three clusters of factors are distinguished: individual factors, climate factors and publication factors. Our research question was: to what extent can individual, climate and publication factors explain the variance in frequently perceived research misbehaviors?

Methods: From May 2017 until July 2017, we conducted a survey study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. The survey included three measurement instruments that we previously reported individual results of and here we integrate these findings.

Results: One thousand two hundred ninety-eight researchers completed the survey (response rate: 17%). Results showed that individual, climate and publication factors combined explained 34% of variance in perceived frequency of research misbehavior. Individual factors explained 7%, climate factors explained 22% and publication factors 16%.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that the perceptions of the research climate play a substantial role in explaining variance in research misbehavior. This suggests that efforts to improve departmental norms might have a salutary effect on behavior.

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
解释被感知的研究不当行为的差异:来自阿姆斯特丹学术研究人员的调查结果。
背景:对学术科学中研究不端行为的关注引发了人们对可能解释研究不端行为的因素的兴趣。通常可以区分三组因素:个人因素、气候因素和出版因素。我们的研究问题是:个人、气候和出版因素在多大程度上可以解释经常被感知的研究不当行为的差异?方法:2017年5月至2017年7月,我们对阿姆斯特丹的学术研究人员进行了调查研究。该调查包括三种测量工具,我们之前报告了各自的结果,在这里我们整合了这些发现。结果:共有1298名研究人员完成调查,回复率为17%。结果显示,个人、气候和出版因素共同解释了34%的研究不当行为感知频率差异。个人因素解释了7%,气候因素解释了22%,出版因素解释了16%。结论:我们的研究结果表明,对研究气候的感知在解释研究不当行为的差异方面发挥了重要作用。这表明,努力改善部门规范可能会对行为产生有益的影响。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Most science is published from countries lacking in democracy and freedom of press. Comparison of preprints and their corresponding peer-reviewed publications in the health field: a scoping review. Gender reporting across regions and time in psychological studies: a scoping review of studies in psychological Science between 2019 and 2024. Reverse spin bias: preliminary observations of reporting bias in medical systematic reviews. The role of research ethics committees in addressing optimism in sample size calculations: a meta-epidemiological study.
×
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:604180095
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