Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21787634 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Mariola Paruzel-Czachura (0000-0002-8716-9778, University of Silesia in Katowice, corresponding author), Lidia Baran (0000-0002-3118-1997, University of Silesia in Katowice), Zbigniew Spendel (University of Silesia in Katowice) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 375-397 |
| Publication date | 2021-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Research Ethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1747-0161 • E-ISSN: 2047-6094 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1747016120980562 |
| OpenAlex | W3112308757 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 16 |
| References cited | 50 |
The paper reports two studies exploring the relationship between scholars’ self-reported publication pressure and their self-reported scientific misconduct in research. In Study 1 the participants ( N = 423) were scholars representing various disciplines from one big university in Poland. In Study 2 the participants ( N = 31) were exclusively members of the management, such as dean, director, etc. from the same university. In Study 1 the most common reported form of scientific misconduct was honorary authorship. The majority of researchers (71%) reported that they had not violated ethical standards in the past; 3% admitted to scientific misconduct; 51% reported being were aware of colleagues’ scientific misconduct. A small positive correlation between perceived publication pressure and intention to engage in scientific misconduct in the future was found. In Study 2 more than half of the management (52%) reported being aware of researchers’ dishonest practices, the most frequent one of these being honorary authorship. As many as 71% of the participants report observing publication pressure in their subordinates. The primary conclusions are: (1) most scholars are convinced of their morality and predict that they will behave morally in the future; (2) scientific misconduct, particularly minor offenses such as honorary authorship, is frequently observed both by researchers (particularly in their colleagues) and by their managers; (3) researchers experiencing publication pressure report a willingness to engage in scientific misconduct in the future
Alternative medicine · Misconduct · Morality · Political science · Psychiatry · Public relations · Publication · Publishing · Research ethics · Research integrity · Scientific Misconduct · Academic integrity and plagiarism · Ethics in Business and Education · Law · Medicine · Psychology · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Development and Validation of the Japanese Version of the Revised Publication Pressure Questionnaire ( PPQr ‐J)
Deficient epistemic virtues and prevalence of epistemic vices as precursors to transgressions in research misconduct
Perceived publication pressure and research misconduct
Ethical and informative trials
Factors influencing researchers’ scientific integrity in scholarly publishing
The risk of normative bias in reporting empirical research
The impact of the ‘publish or perish’ culture on research practices and academic life in Kazakhstan
Are Callings Always Ethically Good? Why and When Occupational Calling Inhibits Unethical Decision-Making Among Researchers
The More the Merrier
Understanding the increasing market share of the academic publisher “Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute” in the publication output of Central and Eastern European countries
The unintended consequences of a quantitative, centralized faculty promotion system
Questioning Scientific Publications
Scientific Integrity of Researchers in Scholarly Publishing
A Questionnaire Survey on Chinese Translation and Interpreting Scholars’ Publication Pressure and Its Impact on Research Quality and Publishing Ethics
Toward a Research Code of Ethics for Urban Planners
Why social norms matter in science
Deviance and social change
Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity
Scientists behaving badly
The Dishonesty of Honest People
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
Paradoxical Effects of Power on Moral Thinking
Bounded Ethicality as a Psychological Barrier to Recognizing Conflicts of Interest
Intended and unintended consequences of a publish‐or‐perish culture
Publication Pressure and Scientific Misconduct in Medical Scientists
Scientists' Perceptions of Organizational Justice and Self-Reported Misbehaviors
Social class, power, and selfishness
Norms and Deviant Behavior in Science
| Unique citing works | 16 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 4 |
| Citation span | 2022 - 2026 (5) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 16 |