How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A transcultural case study of Chinese and Flemish researchers

How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A case study of Indian researchers

Despite ample evidence of increasing research misconduct in India, little attention has been paid to understanding researchers' perception of research integrity and research misconduct among young Indian researchers. Interviews among 30 research scholars were conducted at Pondicherry University in India to understand their experience and perception of research misconduct. The top three influencing factors for scientific misconduct, according to the participants, were unavailability of adequate funds (35%), pressure from research supervisors (29%), and desperation to publish articles (25%). The participants had witnessed research misconduct in different forms i.e., data fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, plagiarism was the most often cited cause of misbehavior in our interviews. Majority of participants have witnessed or personally encountered multiple instances where authorship conflicts occurred. The other questionable research practices highlighted in the study were improper citations, authorship disputes like gift and ghost authorships, misrepresentation of statistical data, failure to publish negative results. In an increasingly diverse and changing research environment, our research calls for practical research guidelines based on honesty, openness, and accountability that can help articulate and strengthen scientists' core values. More importantly, scientific misconduct can only be prevented by using a multifaceted strategy that includes identifying instances of scientific misconduct and implementing suitable deterrents and treatments that could change the behavior associated with such misconduct.

Differing perceptions concerning research misconduct between China and Flanders: A qualitative study

In the field of research integrity, there has been increasing interest in the influence of culture on research misconduct. Yet, there is a lack of empirical study on how differently researchers from distinct cultural backgrounds perceive research misconduct. Hence, we used the qualitative approach to investigate and compare perspectives concerning research misconduct between Chinese and Flemish researchers. By means of 45 interviews we explored their perspectives on types, determinants of, and solutions to research misconduct. Our findings show elements of scientific culture shared by both groups, but also clear dissimilarities. The Chinese participants more often mentioned plagiarism and inappropriate authorship as examples of research misconduct, while Flemish respondents brought up fabrication and falsification. Research misconduct was associated with diverse determinants, though the Chinese favored the "bad apple" theory (more intrinsic), while the Flemish pointed to the "publish or perish" pressure and attributed misconduct to situational aspects (rather extrinsic). Accordingly, they proposed diverse strategies to handle this issue, yet education and training were recommended by both groups. This study confirms that research misconduct is the result of many factors intertwining and interacting, and suggests that cultural traits contribute to our perceptions of research misconduct and subsequent bias in that context.

Perceptions of plagiarism by biomedical researchers: an online survey in Europe and China

BACKGROUND

Plagiarism is considered as serious research misconduct, together with data fabrication and falsification. However, little is known about biomedical researchers' views on plagiarism. Moreover, it has been argued - based on limited empirical evidence - that perceptions of plagiarism depend on cultural and other determinants. The authors explored, by means of an online survey among 46 reputable universities in Europe and China, how plagiarism is perceived by biomedical researchers in both regions.

METHODS

We collected work e-mail addresses of biomedical researchers identified through the websites of 13 reputable universities in Europe and 33 reputable universities in China and invited them to participate in an online anonymous survey. Our questionnaire was designed to assess respondents' views about plagiarism by asking whether they considered specific practices as plagiarism. We analyzed if respondents in China and Europe responded differently, using logistic regression analysis with adjustments for demographic and other relevant factors.

RESULTS

The authors obtained valid responses from 204 researchers based in China (response rate 2.1%) and 826 researchers based in Europe (response rate 5.6%). Copying text from someone else's publication without crediting the source, using idea(s) from someone else's publication without crediting the source and republishing one's own work in another language without crediting the source were considered as plagiarism by 98, 67 and 64%, respectively. About one-third of the respondents reported to have been unsure whether they had been plagiarizing. Overall, the pattern of responses was similar among respondents based in Europe and China. Nevertheless, for some items significant differences did occur in disadvantage of Chinese respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that nearly all biomedical researchers understand (and disapprove of) the most obvious forms of plagiarism, but uncertainties and doubts were apparent for many aspects. And the minority of researchers who did not recognize some types of plagiarism as plagiarism was larger among China-based respondents than among Europe-based respondents. The authors conclude that biomedical researchers need clearer working definitions of plagiarism in order to deal with grey zones.

A Thematic Review on Research Integrity and Research Supervision: Relationships, Crises and Critical Messages

This article focuses on reporting the relationship between research integrity and research supervision. Initially, it briefly discusses the positive research supervision. By following a detailed thematic analysis methodology, 66 published sources were compiled, disassembled, reassembled and interpreted. The findings of this study highlight that maintaining research integrity is the responsibility of all, and that more responsibility falls onto the shoulders of instructors and supervisors who need to ethically perform research supervision to maintain further research integrity. Further, they show crises related to how research supervision is at danger, and how danger at supervision exists. The insights reported in this study help raise further awareness towards effective research supervision that in return and in effect enhances the overall research integrity. The review also concludes with three critical messages (for higher education policymakers, administrators, instructor/supervisors, and students/supervisees) for a practical implementation.