Tamarinde Haven1, Joeri Tijdink2,3, Brian Martinson4,5,6, Lex Bouter2,7, Frans Oort8. 1. Department of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. t.l.haven@vu.nl. 2. Department of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 4. Department of Research, HealthPartners Institute, 8170 33rd Ave. S., Bloomington, MN, 55425, USA. 5. Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA. 7. Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 127, 1018 WS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Publication pressure; Research climate; Research integrity; Research misbehavior
Authors: Rens van de Schoot; Sonja D Winter; Elian Griffioen; Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen; Ingrid Arts; Duco Veen; Elizabeth M Grandfield; Lars G Tummers Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2021-11-29