ArticlePloS one2022
Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 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
73 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact and Assessment of Research Integrity Teaching: A Systematic Literature Review.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Pooled it
- Retractions in Psychology and Psychiatry in Web of Science : A Bioethical Perspective.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Review
- Scientific misconduct, questionable research practices, and research climate: empirical approaches to integrity problems.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Review
- How do PhD candidates perceive good research practices in the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity?Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Experiences of researchers in navigating applied research in the MENA region: an exploratory online cross-sectional survey.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Graduate Students Find Content of Responsible Conduct of Research Coursework Useful.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- Research Misconduct in Academia: Examining the Views of Academics in a Public University in Ghana.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- Beyond genuine collaboration: the rise of strategic co-authorship in contemporary academic publishing.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Journal of Global Health's GUidelines for Authors on Requesting and DIsclosing changes in Authorship Nominations (GUARDIAN).Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Questionable Research Practices: A Principled Classification and Ranking Based on Survey Data.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- Time, Quality, and Integrity: Temporal Autonomy as a Missing Link in Research Assessment Reform.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- A low-cost approach to high quality responsible conduct of research education.International journal of ethics education · 2026Article
- Favorable research environment is a key determinant of research integrity according to a ten-country survey across Central and Eastern Europe.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessing Questionable and Responsible Research Practices in Psychology Master's Theses.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ideological bias in the production of research findings.Science advances · 2026Article
- Article
- The effect of manuscript characteristics on quality assessment of scientific manuscripts in psychology.PloS one · 2026Article
- Can I trust this paper?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Imparting the core competencies of a scientific scholar through a week-long focused course: a pre-post study in Swiss undergraduate medical students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Review
13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. It included questions about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used the randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. 6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and of falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30). We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the "publish or perish" incentive system promotes research integrity.
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.