ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2021
Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Correction: Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Scientific misconduct, questionable research practices, and research climate: empirical approaches to integrity problems.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Review
- Perceptions of the Research Integrity Climate in Egyptian Universities: A Survey Among Academic Researchers.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Towards a Research Agenda for Promoting Responsible Research Practices.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2021Article
- Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- The Use of Questionable Research Practices to Survive in Academia Examined With Expert Elicitation, Prior-Data Conflicts, Bayes Factors for Replication Effects, and the Bayes Truth Serum.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConcerns about research misbehavior in academic science have sparked interest in the factors that may explain research misbehavior. Often three clusters of factors are distinguished: individual factors, climate factors and publication factors. Our research question was: to what extent can individual, climate and publication factors explain the variance in frequently perceived research misbehaviors?
methodsFrom May 2017 until July 2017, we conducted a survey study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. The survey included three measurement instruments that we previously reported individual results of and here we integrate these findings.
resultsOne thousand two hundred ninety-eight researchers completed the survey (response rate: 17%). Results showed that individual, climate and publication factors combined explained 34% of variance in perceived frequency of research misbehavior. Individual factors explained 7%, climate factors explained 22% and publication factors 16%.
conclusionsOur results suggest that the perceptions of the research climate play a substantial role in explaining variance in research misbehavior. This suggests that efforts to improve departmental norms might have a salutary effect on behavior.
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.