感知到的出版压力和研究不端行为:我们应该过于纠结于因果关系吗?

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS Research Ethics Pub Date : 2022-09-17 DOI:10.1177/17470161221125097
N. S. Yeo-Teh, B. Tang
{"title":"感知到的出版压力和研究不端行为:我们应该过于纠结于因果关系吗?","authors":"N. S. Yeo-Teh, B. Tang","doi":"10.1177/17470161221125097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Publication pressure has been touted to promote questionable research practices (QRP) and scientific or research misconduct (RM). However, logically attractively as it is, there is no unequivocal evidence for this notion, and empirical studies have produced conflicting results. Other than difficulties in obtaining unbiased empirical data, a direct causal relationship between perceived publication pressure (PPP) and QRP/RM is inherently difficult to establish, because the former is a complex biopsychosocial construct that is variedly influenced by multiple personal and environmental factors. To effectively address QRP/RM by tackling the sources of PPP would also be difficult because of the competitive nature of the reward and merit system of contemporary science. We might do better with efforts in enhancing knowledge in research ethics and integrity among the practitioners, as well as institutional infrastructures and mechanisms to fairly and efficiently adjudicate cases of QRP/RM.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"8 1","pages":"329 - 338"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceived publication pressure and research misconduct: should we be too bothered with a causal relationship?\",\"authors\":\"N. S. Yeo-Teh, B. Tang\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17470161221125097\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Publication pressure has been touted to promote questionable research practices (QRP) and scientific or research misconduct (RM). However, logically attractively as it is, there is no unequivocal evidence for this notion, and empirical studies have produced conflicting results. Other than difficulties in obtaining unbiased empirical data, a direct causal relationship between perceived publication pressure (PPP) and QRP/RM is inherently difficult to establish, because the former is a complex biopsychosocial construct that is variedly influenced by multiple personal and environmental factors. To effectively address QRP/RM by tackling the sources of PPP would also be difficult because of the competitive nature of the reward and merit system of contemporary science. We might do better with efforts in enhancing knowledge in research ethics and integrity among the practitioners, as well as institutional infrastructures and mechanisms to fairly and efficiently adjudicate cases of QRP/RM.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Ethics\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"329 - 338\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221125097\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221125097","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

出版压力被吹捧为促进有问题的研究实践(QRP)和科学或研究不端行为(RM)。然而,尽管逻辑上很吸引人,但这一概念并没有明确的证据,实证研究也产生了相互矛盾的结果。除了难以获得公正的经验数据外,感知出版压力(PPP)与QRP/RM之间的直接因果关系本身就难以建立,因为前者是一个复杂的生物心理社会结构,受到多种个人和环境因素的不同影响。由于当代科学奖励和绩效制度的竞争性,通过解决公私合作关系的来源来有效地解决QRP/RM问题也很困难。我们若能加强研究人员对研究伦理和诚信的认识,以及加强机构基础设施和机制,以公平和有效地裁决QRP/RM个案,可能会做得更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Perceived publication pressure and research misconduct: should we be too bothered with a causal relationship?
Publication pressure has been touted to promote questionable research practices (QRP) and scientific or research misconduct (RM). However, logically attractively as it is, there is no unequivocal evidence for this notion, and empirical studies have produced conflicting results. Other than difficulties in obtaining unbiased empirical data, a direct causal relationship between perceived publication pressure (PPP) and QRP/RM is inherently difficult to establish, because the former is a complex biopsychosocial construct that is variedly influenced by multiple personal and environmental factors. To effectively address QRP/RM by tackling the sources of PPP would also be difficult because of the competitive nature of the reward and merit system of contemporary science. We might do better with efforts in enhancing knowledge in research ethics and integrity among the practitioners, as well as institutional infrastructures and mechanisms to fairly and efficiently adjudicate cases of QRP/RM.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Deficient epistemic virtues and prevalence of epistemic vices as precursors to transgressions in research misconduct COVID-19 human challenge trials and randomized controlled trials: lessons for the next pandemic Needs and preferences of REB members in the development of a new TCPS 2 training program in Canada Challenges facing Arab researchers in conducting and publishing scientific research: a qualitative interview study Passive data collection on Reddit: a practical approach
×
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