Search

Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. It included questions about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used the randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. 6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and of falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30). We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the "publish or perish" incentive system promotes research integrity.

We call on research funding organisations to experiment with different models for integrating partial randomisation into their grant allocation processes as well as to assess the feasibility, the potential implications, and the perceptions of such models. Traditional models of grant allocation have usually been based on peer review to rank applications and allocate grants. These models have been shown to suffer from various shortcomings. In particular, we believe that partial randomisation holds the potential of being more fair, more efficient, and more diverse. In addition, it may lead to more responsible research practices. We outline a proposal for such a grant allocation process and sketch various arguments in favour of it. We also address potential counterarguments and conclude that partial randomisation in grant allocation holds the potential to lead to many benefits and therefore warrants further experimentation and implementation.

Background: Traditionally, research integrity studies have focused on research misbehaviors and their explanations. Over time, attention has shifted towards preventing questionable research practices and promoting responsible ones. However, data on the prevalence of responsible research practices, especially open methods, open codes and open data and their underlying associative factors, remains scarce. Methods: We conducted a web-based anonymized questionnaire, targeting all academic researchers working at or affiliated to a university or university medical center in The Netherlands, to investigate the prevalence and potential explanatory factors of 11 responsible research practices. Results: A total of 6,813 academics completed the survey, the results of which show that prevalence of responsible practices differs substantially across disciplines and ranks, with 99 percent avoiding plagiarism in their work but less than 50 percent pre-registering a research protocol. Arts and humanities scholars as well as PhD candidates and junior researchers engaged less often in responsible research practices. Publication pressure negatively affected responsible practices, while mentoring, scientific norms subscription and funding pressure stimulated them. Conclusions: Understanding the prevalence of responsible research practices across disciplines and ranks, as well as their associated explanatory factors, can help to systematically address disciplinary- and academic rank-specific obstacles, and thereby facilitate responsible conduct of research.

Research integrity (RI) is crucial for producing research that is trustworthy and of high quality. Rules are important in setting RI standards, improving research practice and fostering responsible research practices. At the same time, rules can lead to increased bureaucracy, which without commensurate increased commitment amongst researchers towards RI is unlikely to lead to more responsible research behavior. In this paper, we explore the question: How can rules and commitment be combined to foster RI? There are three ways that research institutions can govern RI: markets (governing through incentives), hierarchies or bureaucracies (governing through rules), and network processes (governing through commitment and agreement at group level). Based on Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action, we argue that network processes focusing on consensus, as part of the lifeworld, are necessary to legitimize and support systems, i.e. market and bureaucratic modes of governance. We analyze the institutional response to a serious RI case to illustrate how network processes can create a context in which rules can foster RI. Specifically, we analyze how the Science Committee established at Tilburg University in 2012 has navigated and combined different modes of governance to foster RI. Based on this case analysis, we formulate recommendations to research institutions on how to combine rules and commitment.