Literature DB >> 25747691

Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists.

Joeri K Tijdink1, Reinout Verbeke2, Yvo M Smulders3.   

Abstract

There is increasing evidence that scientific misconduct is more common than previously thought. Strong emphasis on scientific productivity may increase the sense of publication pressure. We administered a nationwide survey to Flemish biomedical scientists on whether they had engaged in scientific misconduct and whether they had experienced publication pressure. A total of 315 scientists participated in the survey; 15% of the respondents admitted they had fabricated, falsified, plagiarized, or manipulated data in the past 3 years. Fraud was more common among younger scientists working in a university hospital. Furthermore, 72% rated publication pressure as "too high." Publication pressure was strongly and significantly associated with a composite scientific misconduct severity score.
© The Author(s) 2014.

Keywords:  ethics in publishing; fraud; publication pressure; questionable research practice; scientific misconduct

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25747691     DOI: 10.1177/1556264614552421

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  34 in total

1.  Competitive science: is competition ruining science?

Authors:  Ferric C Fang; Arturo Casadevall
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 3.441

2.  Meta-assessment of bias in science.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli; Rodrigo Costas; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-03-20       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Grounds for Ambiguity: Justifiable Bases for Engaging in Questionable Research Practices.

Authors:  Donald F Sacco; Mitch Brown; Samuel V Bruton
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2018-09-26       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Distress and burnout in young medical researchers before and during the Greek austerity measures: forerunner of a greater crisis?

Authors:  Dimitra Sifaki-Pistolla; Vasiliki-Eirini Chatzea; Evangelos Melidoniotis; Enkeleint-Aggelos Mechili
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  2018-04-02       Impact factor: 4.328

Review 5.  Evidence appraisal: a scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda.

Authors:  Andrew Goldstein; Eric Venker; Chunhua Weng
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  Becoming metrics literate: An analysis of brief videos that teach about the h-index.

Authors:  Lauren A Maggio; Alyssa Jeffrey; Stefanie Haustein; Anita Samuel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-06       Impact factor: 3.752

7.  Scientific Misconduct and Social Media: Role of Twitter in the Stimulus Triggered Acquisition of Pluripotency Cells Scandal.

Authors:  Yuya Sugawara; Tetsuya Tanimoto; Shoko Miyagawa; Masayasu Murakami; Atsushi Tsuya; Atsushi Tanaka; Masahiro Kami; Hiroto Narimatsu
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 5.428

8.  Who Believes in the Storybook Image of the Scientist?

Authors:  Coosje L S Veldkamp; Chris H J Hartgerink; Marcel A L M van Assen; Jelte M Wicherts
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 2.622

9.  Personality Traits Are Associated with Research Misbehavior in Dutch Scientists: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Joeri K Tijdink; Lex M Bouter; Coosje L S Veldkamp; Peter M van de Ven; Jelte M Wicherts; Yvo M Smulders
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers.

Authors:  J K Tijdink; K Schipper; L M Bouter; P Maclaine Pont; J de Jonge; Y M Smulders
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.