Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers

Overview

Journal Sci Eng Ethics

Date 2021 Dec 21

PMID 34932191

Citations 7

Authors

Matthias Kaiser

Laura Drivdal

Johs Hjellbrekke

Helene Ingierd

Ole Bjorn Rekdal

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

This article presents results from the national survey conducted in 2018 for the project Research Integrity in Norway (RINO). A total of 31,206 questionnaires were sent out to Norwegian researchers by e-mail, and 7291 responses were obtained. In this paper, we analyse the survey data to determine attitudes towards and the prevalence of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) and contrast this with attitudes towards and the prevalence of the more questionable research practices (QRPs) surveyed. Our results show a relatively low percentage of self-reported FFPs (0.2-0.3%), while the number of researchers who report having committed one of the QRPs during the last three years reached a troublesome 40%. The article also presents a ranking of the perceived severity of FFP and QRPs among Norwegian researchers. Overall, there is a widespread normative consensus, where FFP is considered more troublesome than QRPs.

Citing Articles

Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Cross-national evidence for widespread involvement but not systematic use of questionable research practices across all fields of research.

Schneider J, Allum N, Andersen J, Petersen M, Madsen E, Mejlgaard N PLoS One. 2024; 19(8):e0304342.

PMID: 39133711 PMC: 11318862. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304342.

Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies.

Wendelborn C, Anger M, Schickhardt C Sci Eng Ethics. 2024; 30(4):35.

PMID: 39105890 PMC: 11303567. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-024-00491-3.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices About Research Integrity and Scientific Misconduct Among the Faculty and Medical Postgraduates Working in Medical Colleges in North Karnataka and Central India: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey.

Khot A, Chindhalore C, Naikwadi A Cureus. 2024; 16(4):e59200.

PMID: 38807845 PMC: 11131433. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.59200.

Knowledge, attitudes and practices about research misconduct among medical residents in southwest China: a cross-sectional study.

Chen L, Li Y, Wang J, Li Y, Tan X, Guo X BMC Med Educ. 2024; 24(1):284.

PMID: 38486182 PMC: 10941492. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-024-05277-6.

How Competition for Funding Impacts Scientific Practice: Building Pre-fab Houses but no Cathedrals.

Meirmans S Sci Eng Ethics. 2024; 30(1):6.

PMID: 38349578 PMC: 10864468. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-024-00465-5.

References

Hofmann B, Myhr A, Holm S . Scientific dishonesty--a nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway. BMC Med Ethics. 2013; 14:3. PMC: 3545724. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-14-3. View

Fong E, Wilhite A . Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLoS One. 2017; 12(12):e0187394. PMC: 5718422. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187394. View

Steneck N . Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Sci Eng Ethics. 2006; 12(1):53-74. DOI: 10.1007/pl00022268. View

Aubert Bonn N, Godecharle S, Dierickx K . European Universities' Guidance on Research Integrity and Misconduct. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2017; 12(1):33-44. DOI: 10.1177/1556264616688980. View

Hofmann B, Helgesson G, Juth N, Holm S . Scientific Dishonesty: A Survey of Doctoral Students at the Major Medical Faculties in Sweden and Norway. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015; 10(4):380-8. DOI: 10.1177/1556264615599686. View

Shaw D . The Quest for Clarity in Research Integrity: A Conceptual Schema. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018; 25(4):1085-1093. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-018-0052-2. View

Haven T, Tijdink J, Martinson B, Bouter L . Perceptions of research integrity climate differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields: Results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam. PLoS One. 2019; 14(1):e0210599. PMC: 6338411. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210599. View

Felaefel M, Salem M, Jaafar R, Jassim G, Edwards H, Rashid-Doubell F . A Cross-Sectional Survey Study to Assess Prevalence and Attitudes Regarding Research Misconduct among Investigators in the Middle East. J Acad Ethics. 2018; 16(1):71-87. PMC: 5945220. DOI: 10.1007/s10805-017-9295-9. View

Smith E, Williams-Jones B, Master Z, Lariviere V, Sugimoto C, Paul-Hus A . Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019; 26(4):1967-1993. PMC: 6888995. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-019-00112-4. View

10.

Holm S, Hofmann B . Investigating the Reliability and Factor Structure of Kalichman's "Survey 2: Research Misconduct" Questionnaire: A Post Hoc Analysis Among Biomedical Doctoral Students in Scandinavia. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2017; 12(4):199-205. DOI: 10.1177/1556264617714658. View

11.

Kaiser M . The integrity of science - lost in translation?. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2014; 28(2):339-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpg.2014.03.003. View

12.

Broad W . The publishing game: getting more for less. Science. 1981; 211(4487):1137-9. DOI: 10.1126/science.7008199. View

13.

Rekdal O . Academic urban legends. Soc Stud Sci. 2014; 44(4):638-54. PMC: 4232290. DOI: 10.1177/0306312714535679. View

14.

Pupovac V, Prijic-Samarzija S, Petrovecki M . Research Misconduct in the Croatian Scientific Community: A Survey Assessing the Forms and Characteristics of Research Misconduct. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016; 23(1):165-181. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9767-0. View

15.

Xie Y, Wang K, Kong Y . Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sci Eng Ethics. 2021; 27(4):41. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9. View

16.

Godecharle S, Nemery B, Dierickx K . Integrity training: conflicting practices. Science. 2013; 340(6139):1403. DOI: 10.1126/science.340.6139.1403-b. View

17.

Feenstra R, Lopez-Cozar E, Pallares-Dominguez D . Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers' Perceptions in Spain. Sci Eng Ethics. 2021; 27(1):1. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-021-00278-w. View

18.

Martinson B, Anderson M, De Vries R . Scientists behaving badly. Nature. 2005; 435(7043):737-8. DOI: 10.1038/435737a. View

19.

Bouter L, Tijdink J, Axelsen N, Martinson B, 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. 2018; 1:17. PMC: 5803629. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5. View

20.

Gopalakrishna G, Ter Riet G, Vink G, Stoop I, Wicherts J, Bouter L . Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PLoS One. 2022; 17(2):e0263023. PMC: 8849616. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263023. View