ArticlePloS one2022
Leaving academia: PhD attrition and unhealthy research environments.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scientific misconduct, questionable research practices, and research climate: empirical approaches to integrity problems.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Review
- Narratives of quitting and quests for teaching reform: an affective event perspective on Chinese doctoral students' intentions to drop out.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Potentialities and challenges of stricto sensu graduate studies in health: A qualitative meta-synthesis.Investigacion y educacion en enfermeria · 2025Article
- Leading by example: how to empower supervisors as role models.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Article
- Climate of Accountability, Respect, and Ethics Survey (CARES): development and validation of an organizational climate survey.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Article
- A qualitative study of graduate student emotional and cognitive processing of unexpected (chance) events.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Concerns About Theorizing, Relevance, Generalizability, and Methodology Across Two Crises in Social Psychology.International review of social psychology · 2025Article
- Gender differences in animal cognition science.Animal cognition · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates PhD candidates' (N = 391) perceptions about their research environment at a Dutch university in terms of the research climate, (un)ethical supervisory practices, and questionable research practices. We assessed whether their perceptions are related to career considerations. We gathered quantitative self-report estimations of the perceptions of PhD candidates using an online survey tool and then conducted descriptive and within-subject correlation analysis of the results. While most PhD candidates experience fair evaluation processes, openness, integrity, trust, and freedom in their research climate, many report lack of time and support, insufficient supervision, and witness questionable research practices. Results based on Spearman correlations indicate that those who experience a less healthy research environment (including experiences with unethical supervision, questionable practices, and barriers to responsible research), more often consider leaving academia and their current PhD position.
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.