ArticlePloS one2019
Perceptions of research integrity climate differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields: Results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why researchers cut corners: motivations, pressures, and personality in questionable research practices.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- The role of senior researchers in promoting good science: Obstacles and enablers.Open research Europe · 2025Article
- Perceptions of the Research Integrity Climate in Egyptian Universities: A Survey Among Academic Researchers.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024Article
- Current situation and influence factors of scientific integrity in China: A multicenter survey.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2024Article
- Cross-cultural differences in retracted publications of male and female from a global perspective.Scientometrics · 2023Article
- Research Integrity Supervision Practices and Institutional Support: A Qualitative Study.Journal of academic ethics · 2022Article
- Perceptions of Research Integrity Climate in Hungarian Universities: Results from A Survey among Academic Researchers.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Reverse mentoring to enhance research integrity climate.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- Examining the Components of Integrity.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2022Article
- Prevalence of responsible research practices among academics in The Netherlands.F1000Research · 2022Article
- Assessing the climate for research ethics in labs: Development and validation of a brief measure.Accountability in research · 2022Article
- Article
- Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Graphical integrity issues in open access publications: Detection and patterns of proportional ink violations.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Towards a Research Agenda for Promoting Responsible Research Practices.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2021Article
- Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers' Perceptions in Spain.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Perception of Organizational Ethical Climate by University Staff and Students in Medicine and Humanities: A Cross Sectional Study.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Assessing the Organizational Climate for Translational Research with a New Survey Tool.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breaches of research integrity have shocked the academic community. Initially explanations were sought at the level of individual researchers but over time increased recognition emerged of the important role that the research integrity climate may play in influencing researchers' (mis)behavior. In this study we aim to assess whether researchers from different academic ranks and disciplinary fields experience the research integrity climate differently. We sent an online questionnaire to academic researchers in Amsterdam using the Survey of Organizational Research Climate. Bonferroni corrected mean differences showed that junior researchers (PhD students, postdocs and assistant professors) perceive the research integrity climate more negatively than senior researchers (associate and full professors). Junior researchers note that their supervisors are less committed to talk about key research integrity principles compared to senior researchers (MD = -.39, CI = -.55, -.24). PhD students perceive more competition and suspicion among colleagues (MD = -.19, CI = -.35, -.05) than associate and full professors. We found that researchers from the natural sciences overall express a more positive perception of the research integrity climate. Researchers from social sciences as well as from the humanities perceive less fairness of their departments' expectations in terms of publishing and acquiring funding compared to natural sciences and biomedical sciences (MD = -.44, CI = -.74, -.15; MD = -.36, CI = -.61, -.11). Results suggest that department leaders in the humanities and social sciences should do more to set fairer expectations for their researchers and that senior scientists should ensure junior researchers are socialized into research integrity practices and foster a climate in their group where suspicion among colleagues has no place.
Indexed as
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.