Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research
| Autor: | Lidia Baran, Zbigniew Spendel, Mariola Paruzel-Czachura |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Ethics
Research ethics business.industry Academic dishonesty research ethics 06 humanities and the arts 0603 philosophy ethics and religion BJ1-1725 academic dishonesty Education publication pressure 03 medical and health sciences Philosophy scientific misconduct unethical behavior 0302 clinical medicine Publishing Political science Engineering ethics 060301 applied ethics 030212 general & internal medicine business Scientific misconduct Publication |
| Zdroj: | Research Ethics Review, Vol 17 (2021) |
| DOI: | 10.31219/osf.io/3c9qu |
| Popis: | The article aims to examine the relationship between scholars’ self-reported publication pressure and their self-reported scientific misconduct in research. In Study 1 the participants (N = 423) were scholars representing various disciplines from one big university in Poland. In Study 2 the participants (N = 31) were exclusively members of the management, such as dean, director, etc. from the same university. In Study 1 the most popular scientific misconduct was honorary authorship. The majority of researchers (71%) reported that they definitely had not violated ethical standards in the past, 3% admitted doing scientific misconduct giving examples, 51% were aware of their colleagues’ scientific misconduct. Participants reported a significantly higher level of dishonesty among others compared to their scientific misconduct. Individuals observing strong publication pressure in their colleagues were also aware of their colleagues’ practices violating ethical standards. A small positive correlation between perceived publication pressure and intention to engage in scientific misconduct in the future was found. Only 3% of the participants stated that the current system of evaluating their research work was fully satisfactory. In Study 2 more than half of the management (52%) were aware of researchers’ dishonest practices, the most frequent one of these being honorary authorship. As many as 71% of the participants observe publication pressure in their subordinates. Three main conclusions are: 1) most scholars are convinced of their morality and predict that they will behave morally in the future; 2) our results attest to the problem of scientific misconduct, particularly minor offenses such as honorary authorship, observed both by researchers themselves (particularly in their colleagues) and by their superiors; 3) researchers experiencing publication pressure report an intention to engage in scientific misconduct in the future, and individuals in managerial positions observing publication pressure in their subordinates also observe their dishonest research practices. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|