ArticlePloS one
Personality Traits Are Associated with Research Misbehavior in Dutch Scientists: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 113 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Pooled it
- Toward contextualized research integrity in higher education: a fuzzy-set analysis of individual and organizational configurations among university faculty.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Beyond genuine collaboration: the rise of strategic co-authorship in contemporary academic publishing.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- A multicenter cross-sectional study on perceptions and peer-reported prevalence of research misconduct among Chinese medical postgraduates.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Shaping the Field: A Review of the Use of Theory in Research on Research Integrity.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Review
- Favorable research environment is a key determinant of research integrity according to a ten-country survey across Central and Eastern Europe.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Indirect feedback as a tool for identifying academic misconduct: a cross-sectional multicentral study among medical students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
- Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- Factors necessary for entrustment decision-making in surgical operating rooms: A modified Delphi study.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Research Integrity Supervision Practices and Institutional Support: A Qualitative Study.Journal of academic ethics · 2022Article
- Can research integrity prevail in the market? Lessons from commissioned research organizations.Accountability in research · 2022Article
- Harassment as a consequence and cause of inequality in academia: A narrative review.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Review
- How bullying becomes a career tool.Nature human behaviour · 2022Article
- Proxyeconomics, a theory and model of proxy-based competition and cultural evolution.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Machiavellian Medical Students Report More Academic Misconduct: A Cocktail Fuelled by Psychological and Contextual Factors.Psychology research and behavior management · 2022Article
- Reliability and validation of an attitude scale regarding responsible conduct in research.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersonality influences decision making and ethical considerations. Its influence on the occurrence of research misbehavior has never been studied. This study aims to determine the association between personality traits and self-reported questionable research practices and research misconduct. We hypothesized that narcissistic, Machiavellianistic and psychopathic traits as well as self-esteem are associated with research misbehavior.
methodsIncluded in this cross-sectional study design were 535 Dutch biomedical scientists (response rate 65%) from all hierarchical layers of 4 university medical centers in the Netherlands. We used validated personality questionnaires such as the Dark Triad (narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism), Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale, the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ), and also demographic and job-specific characteristics to investigate the association of personality traits with a composite research misbehavior severity score.
findingsMachiavellianism was positively associated (beta 1.28, CI 1.06-1.53) with self-reported research misbehavior, while narcissism, psychopathy and self-esteem were not. Exploratory analysis revealed that narcissism and research misconduct were more severe among persons in higher academic ranks (i.e., professors) (p<0.01 and p<0.001, respectively), and self-esteem scores and publication pressure were lower (p<0.001 and p<0.01, respectively) as compared to postgraduate PhD fellows.
conclusionsMachiavellianism may be a risk factor for research misbehaviour. Narcissism and research misbehaviour were more prevalent among biomedical scientists in higher academic positions. These results suggest that personality has an impact on research behavior and should be taken into account in fostering responsible conduct of research.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.