Display options
Cite
Bouter LM, Tijdink J, Axelsen N, et al. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016;1:17doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5.
Bouter, L. M., Tijdink, J., Axelsen, N., Martinson, B. C., & Ter Riet, G. (2016). Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Research integrity and peer review, 117. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5
Bouter, Lex M, et al. "Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity." Research integrity and peer review vol. 1 (2016): 17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5
Bouter LM, Tijdink J, Axelsen N, Martinson BC, Ter Riet G. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016 Nov 21;1:17. doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5. eCollection 2016. PMID: 29451551; PMCID: PMC5803629.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016 Nov 21;1:17. doi: 10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5. eCollection 2016.

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

Research integrity and peer review

Lex M Bouter, Joeri Tijdink, Nils Axelsen, Brian C Martinson, Gerben Ter Riet

Affiliations

  1. 1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  2. 2Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  3. 3Department of Internal Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  4. 4Office of Research Integrity, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  5. 5Department of Medicine, HealthPartners Institute and Minneapolis Veterans Affairs, Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN USA.
  6. 6Department of General Practice, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

PMID: 29451551 PMCID: PMC5803629 DOI: 10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Codes of conduct mainly focus on research misconduct that takes the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, at the aggregate level, lesser forms of research misbehavior may be more important due to their much higher prevalence. Little is known about what the most frequent research misbehaviors are and what their impact is if they occur.

METHODS: A survey was conducted among 1353 attendees of international research integrity conferences. They were asked to score 60 research misbehaviors according to their views on and perceptions of the frequency of occurrence, preventability, impact on truth (validity), and impact on trust between scientists on 5-point scales. We expressed the aggregate level impact as the product of frequency scores and truth, trust and preventability scores, respectively. We ranked misbehaviors based on mean scores. Additionally, relevant demographic and professional background information was collected from participants.

RESULTS: Response was 17% of those who were sent the invitational email and 33% of those who opened it. The rankings suggest that selective reporting, selective citing, and flaws in quality assurance and mentoring are viewed as the major problems of modern research. The "deadly sins" of fabrication and falsification ranked highest on the impact on truth but low to moderate on aggregate level impact on truth, due to their low estimated frequency. Plagiarism is thought to be common but to have little impact on truth although it ranked high on aggregate level impact on trust.

CONCLUSIONS: We designed a comprehensive list of 60 major and minor research misbehaviors. Our respondents were much more concerned over sloppy science than about scientific fraud (FFP). In the fostering of responsible conduct of research, we recommend to develop interventions that actively discourage the high ranking misbehaviors from our study.

Keywords: Fabrication; Falsification; Plagiarism; Questionable research practices; Research integrity; Research misconduct; Responsible conduct of research; Sloppy science

References

  1. Sci Eng Ethics. 2006 Jan;12(1):53-74 - PubMed
  2. Nature. 2005 Jun 9;435(7043):737-8 - PubMed
  3. PLoS Biol. 2015 Oct 02;13(10):e1002264 - PubMed
  4. Lancet. 2013 Mar 30;381(9872):1097-8 - PubMed
  5. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015 Oct;10(4):380-8 - PubMed
  6. J Clin Invest. 2015 Nov 2;125(11):3993-6 - PubMed
  7. PLoS Med. 2014 Oct 21;11(10):e1001747 - PubMed
  8. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014 Jul;9(3):79-90 - PubMed
  9. Account Res. 2015 ;22(3):148-61 - PubMed
  10. PLoS One. 2009 May 29;4(5):e5738 - PubMed
  11. JAMA. 2014 Aug 6;312(5):483-4 - PubMed
  12. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005 Jun;26(3):331-7 - PubMed
  13. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 04;4:MR000038 - PubMed

Publication Types