Literature DB >> 25635847

Commentary: Perverse incentives or rotten apples?

Lex M Bouter1.   

Abstract

Around 2% of the investigators admit to have falsified or fabricated data at least once. Also, 34% report to have been guilty to one or more questionable research practices, such as doing many statistical analyses and to publish only what fits their theoretical framework. Prevention of questionable research practices is very important. Universities should ensure that the training is in order and the research culture is adequate, and they should critically look at perverse incentives, such as a too high publication pressure, but also by ensuring proper guidelines, and by having a fair and transparent procedure for suspected violations of scientific integrity.

Entities:  

Keywords:  peer review; questionable research practices; research integrity; research misconduct; responsible conduct of research; selective reporting

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25635847     DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2014.950253

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Account Res        ISSN: 0898-9621            Impact factor:   2.622


  11 in total

1.  Research Ethics 2.0: New Perspectives on Norms, Values, and Integrity in Genomic Research in Times of Even Scarcer Resources.

Authors:  Caroline Brall; Els Maeckelberghe; Rouven Porz; Jihad Makhoul; Peter Schröder-Bäck
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2017-03-14       Impact factor: 2.000

2.  Occurrence and nature of questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in international scientific Health Services Research publications: a structured assessment of publications authored by researchers in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Reinie G Gerrits; Tessa Jansen; Joko Mulyanto; Michael J van den Berg; Niek S Klazinga; Dionne S Kringos
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks.

Authors:  Tamarinde L Haven; Lex M Bouter; Yvo M Smulders; Joeri K Tijdink
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-06-19       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Perceptions of research integrity climate differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields: Results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam.

Authors:  Tamarinde L Haven; Joeri K Tijdink; Brian C Martinson; Lex M Bouter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-18       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Researchers' perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam.

Authors:  Tamarinde L Haven; Joeri K Tijdink; H Roeline Pasman; Guy Widdershoven; Gerben Ter Riet; Lex M Bouter
Journal:  Res Integr Peer Rev       Date:  2019-12-02

6.  Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective.

Authors:  Govert Valkenburg; Guus Dix; Joeri Tijdink; Sarah de Rijcke
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 3.525

7.  Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices.

Authors:  Stijn Conix; Andreas De Block; Krist Vaesen
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2021-11-08

8.  Perception and reaction of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) researchers to different forms of research integrity education modality.

Authors:  Jolene Y L Chua; Celine S L Lee; Kwee P Yeo; Yusuf Ali; Chin L Lim
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 2.834

9.  Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity.

Authors:  Lex M Bouter; Joeri Tijdink; Nils Axelsen; Brian C Martinson; Gerben Ter Riet
Journal:  Res Integr Peer Rev       Date:  2016-11-21

10.  Researchers' Perceptions of a Responsible Research Climate: A Multi Focus Group Study.

Authors:  Tamarinde Haven; H Roeline Pasman; Guy Widdershoven; Lex Bouter; Joeri Tijdink
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2020-08-10       Impact factor: 3.525

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.