1
|
Candal-Pedreira C, Ghaddar A, Pérez-Ríos M, Varela-Lema L, Álvarez-Dardet C, Ruano-Ravina A. Scientific misconduct: A cross-sectional study of the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers. Account Res 2023:1-24. [PMID: 37995199 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2284965] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2023] [Accepted: 11/14/2023] [Indexed: 11/25/2023]
Abstract
This study sought to identify the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers regarding different aspects relating to scientific misconduct, both overall and by gender, years of research experience, and type of research institution. This is a cross-sectional study based on an anonymous online survey, targeting researchers in the field of biomedicine. The survey comprised a first block (13 questions) covering sociodemographic data, and a second block (14 questions) covering researchers' perceptions, attitudes and experiences. A descriptive analysis was performed. 403 researchers answered the survey: 51.1% (n = 205) women, median age 45 years. The observed frequency of scientific misconduct was 78.8%. Additionally, 43.3% of researchers acknowledged having intentionally engaged in some type of scientific misconduct (self-reported frequency). The most frequent type of scientific misconduct was false authorship. The most frequent types of both observed and self-reported scientific misconduct did not appear to differ by years of experience but did differ by gender and type of research institution. In conclusion, there is a high frequency of scientific misconduct among Spanish biomedical science researchers as 4 of 10 researchers recognized that took part in any type of scientific misconduct. There are differences between the most frequent types of misconduct according to different characteristics, mainly type of institution.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cristina Candal-Pedreira
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela), Santiago de Compostela, Spain
| | - Ali Ghaddar
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Lebanese International University, Beirut, Lebanon
- Public Health Research Group, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
| | - Mónica Pérez-Ríos
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela), Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública), Madrid, Spain
| | - Leonor Varela-Lema
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela), Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública), Madrid, Spain
| | - Carlos Álvarez-Dardet
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Lebanese International University, Beirut, Lebanon
- Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública), Madrid, Spain
| | - Alberto Ruano-Ravina
- Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela), Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública), Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Feenstra RA, Delgado López-Cózar E. The footprint of a metrics-based research evaluation system on Spain’s philosophical scholarship: An analysis of researchers’ perceptions. RESEARCH EVALUATION 2022. [DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvac020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
The use of bibliometric indicators in research evaluation has a series of complex impacts on academic inquiry. These systems have gradually spread into a wide range of locations and disciplines, including the humanities. The aim of this study is to examine their effects as perceived by philosophy and ethics researchers in Spain, a country where bibliometric indicators have long been used to evaluate research. The study uses a mixed approach combining quantitative and qualitative data from a self-administered questionnaire completed by 201 researchers and from 14 in-depth interviews with researchers selected according to their affiliation, professional category, gender, and area of knowledge. Results show that the evaluation system is widely perceived to affect university researchers in significant ways, particularly related to publication habits (document type and publication language), the transformation of research agendas and the neglect of teaching work, as well as increasing research misconduct and negatively affecting mental health. Although to a lesser extent, other consequences included increased research productivity and enhanced transparency and impartiality in academic selection processes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ramón A Feenstra
- Departamento de Filosofía y Sociología, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, Universitat Jaume I de Castelló , Avd/Sos Baynat s/n, Castelló de la plana 12071, Spain
| | - Emilio Delgado López-Cózar
- Departamento de Información y Comunicación, Facultad de Comunicación y Documentación, Universidad de Granada , Campus de Cartuja, s/n, Granada 18011, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection. Scientometrics 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04265-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
AbstractThe knowledge and stance of researchers regarding bibliometric indicators is a field of study that has gained weight in recent decades. In this paper we address this issue for the little explored areas of philosophy and ethics, and applied to a context, in this case Spain, where bibliometric indicators are widely used in evaluation processes. The study combines data from a self-administered questionnaire completed by 201 researchers and from 14 in-depth interviews with researchers selected according to their affiliation, professional category, gender and area of knowledge. The survey data suggest that researchers do not consider bibliometric indicators a preferred criterion of quality, while there is a fairly high self-perception of awareness of a number of indicators. The qualitative data points to a generalised perception of a certain rejection of the specific use of indicators, with four main positions being observed: (1) disqualification of the logic of metrics, (2) scepticism about the possibility of assessing quality with quantitative methods, (3) complaints about the incorporation of methods that are considered to belong to other disciplines, and (4) criticism of the consequences that this generates in the discipline of philosophy.
Collapse
|
4
|
Kaiser M, Drivdal L, Hjellbrekke J, Ingierd H, Rekdal OB. Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2021; 28:2. [PMID: 34932191 PMCID: PMC8692305 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-021-00351-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2020] [Accepted: 11/10/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthias Kaiser
- Center for the Study of the Sciences and Humanities, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Laura Drivdal
- Center for the Study of the Sciences and Humanities, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | | | - Helene Ingierd
- The National Committees for Research Ethics in Norway, Oslo, Norway
| | - Ole Bjørn Rekdal
- Department of Welfare and Participation, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Feenstra RA, López‐Cózar ED. Philosophers' perceptions of pay to publish and open access in Spain: Books versus journals, more than a financial dilemma. LEARNED PUBLISHING 2021. [DOI: 10.1002/leap.1426] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ramón A. Feenstra
- Department of Philosophy and Sociology Universitat Jaume I de Castelló Avd Sos Baynat s/n Castelló 12071 Spain
| | - Emilio Delgado López‐Cózar
- Department of Information and Communication Universidad de Granada Calle Campus De Cartuja, s/n Granada 18011 Spain
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
SANTOS-D’AMORIM K, CORREIA AEGC, MIRANDA MKFDO, SANTA-CRUZ P. Reasons and implications of retracted articles in Brazil. TRANSINFORMACAO 2021. [DOI: 10.1590/2318-0889202133e210001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract Over the years, cases of retractions due to unintentional errors or research misconduct have been the subject of discussion, being indispensable to avoid the propagation of misleading information. To understand this matter in the Brazilian scenario, this study characterizes the retractions of authorship or co-authorship of Brazilian researchers between 2002 and 2019, their related consequences and impacts on scientific activity. With a data collection performed at the Retraction Watch database, we analyzed quantitative aspects of the reasons for retractions, stratification by areas of knowledge, the time between publication and retraction, the association of journals and impact factor, authors’ recidivism, the institutional collaboration between Brazilian institutions and countries and funding sources. The results of the analysis of 162 retractions indicate the prevalence of plagiarism (12.2%), the incidence of retracted articles in the Bioscience area (28.1%), in journals with Impact Factors between 2 and 5 (38.0%), and with 2 to 4 authors (38.8%). The occurrences and recurrences of retractions due to misconduct have an impact not only the author’s professional activity but science. Thus, this article emphasizes the importance of prompt retraction, as well as of the need to improve mechanisms to prevent these articles from being published from the start.
Collapse
|