» Articles » PMID: 38568341

Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies

Overview
Journal Sci Eng Ethics
Date 2024 Apr 3
PMID 38568341
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Research Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientific behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information deficit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we define epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientific inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientific work. Our core argument-developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across different fields and European countries-is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to offer a more fine-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.

References
1.
. PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015; 349(6251):aac4716. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716. View

2.
Valkenburg G, Dix G, Tijdink J, de Rijcke S . Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective. Sci Eng Ethics. 2021; 27(1):10. PMC: 7872949. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-021-00291-z. View

3.
Ioannidis J . Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2(8):e124. PMC: 1182327. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. View

4.
Bruton S, Medlin M, Brown M, Sacco D . Personal Motivations and Systemic Incentives: Scientists on Questionable Research Practices. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020; 26(3):1531-1547. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-020-00182-9. View

5.
Teixeira da Silva J . Negative results: negative perceptions limit their potential for increasing reproducibility. J Negat Results Biomed. 2015; 14:12. PMC: 4494691. DOI: 10.1186/s12952-015-0033-9. View