ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020
Personal Motivations and Systemic Incentives: Scientists on Questionable Research Practices.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- How Competition for Funding Impacts Scientific Practice: Building Pre-fab Houses but no Cathedrals.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- Enhancing brain tumor MRI classification with an ensemble of deep learning models and transformer integration.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
- Is N-Hacking Ever OK? The consequences of collecting more data in pursuit of statistical significance.PLoS biology · 2023Article
- Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Principal Investigators' Priorities and Perceived Barriers and Facilitators When Making Decisions About Conducting Essential Research in the COVID-19 Pandemic.Science and engineering ethics · 2023Article
- Quality Output Checklist and Content Assessment (QuOCCA): a new tool for assessing research quality and reproducibility.BMJ open · 2022Review
- An Ethical Exploration of Increased Average Number of Authors Per Publication.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Important Topics for Fostering Research Integrity by Research Performing and Research Funding Organizations: A Delphi Consensus Study.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Review
- Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices.F1000Research · 2021Article
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
Abstract
As concern over the use of questionable research practices (QRPs) in academic science has increased over the last couple of decades, some reforms have been implemented and many others have been debated and recommended. While many of these proposals have merit, efforts to improve scientific practices are more likely to succeed when they are responsive to the prevailing views and concerns of scientists themselves. To date, there have been few efforts to solicit wide-ranging input from researchers on the topic of needed reforms. This article is a qualitative report of responses from federally funded scientists to the question of what should be done to address the problem of QRPs in their disciplines. Overall, participants were concerned about how institutional and career-oriented incentives encourage the use of QRPs. Compared to previous recommendations, participants had surprisingly little confidence in the ability of ethics training to improve research integrity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31981051What 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.