Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40861029›Full record

ArticleScientometrics2025

Are questionable research practices considered a successful career strategy? A novel implementation of the implicit association test.

Antonia Velicu, Fabian Winter, Justus Rathmann, Heiko Rauhut

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientometrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Antonia VelicuDepartment of Sociology, University of Zurich, Andreasstrasse 15, Zurich, 8050 Zurich Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2172-5671
Fabian WinterDepartment of Sociology, University of Zurich, Andreasstrasse 15, Zurich, 8050 Zurich Switzerland.
Justus RathmannDepartment of Sociology, University of Zurich, Andreasstrasse 15, Zurich, 8050 Zurich Switzerland.
Heiko RauhutDepartment of Sociology, University of Zurich, Andreasstrasse 15, Zurich, 8050 Zurich Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) pose significant challenges to the integrity of academic research. This study therefore investigates scientists' implicit associations regarding misconduct and its relationship with perceived academic success. Employing the Single-Category Implicit Association Test (SC-IAT), the attitudes of 11,747 scientists across Austria, Germany, and Switzerland were examined. Results suggest that only a very low fraction of researchers associate serious misconduct with success, yet approximately one-fifth of participants associate QRPs with success. Gender and discipline-based distinctions were minimal, with notable inclinations among PhD students decreasing with status. However, limitations exist, including the lack of validation against explicit attitudes. The decline in the association between QRPs and success with status raises questions about cohort effects or shifting ethical norms. Early intervention and ongoing training efforts may mitigate these issues, emphasizing ethical considerations in scientific practice from undergraduate education onwards. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for fostering integrity in research and guiding future interventions. Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-025-05357-4.

Indexed as

Implicit association testQuestionable research practicesScientific misconductSurvey research

Identifiers

PMID40861029
PMCPMC12374866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.