Paper disputes causes of research misconduct

The pressure to publish high-profile papers may not be linked to research misconduct, a new study has found.

June 14, 2015

Instead productive researchers with high-impact papers and those working in countries were the pressure to publish is intense are less likely to produce retracted papers and are more likely to correct them.

The findings are reported on the Retraction Watch blog ahead of the research paper being published in journal PLOS ONE on 17 June.

A group of researchers led by Daniele Fanelli, senior research scientist in the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford University, looked back at retractions and corrections to see how much influence perceived risk factors had.

They found no support for the idea men might be more prone to misconduct. “[T]he widespread belief that pressures to publish are a major driver of misconduct was largely contradicted,” the paper says, according to the blog post.

But they did find that some factors were associated with a higher rate of misconduct, including a lack of research integrity policy and cash rewards for individual publication performance.

“[O]ur results suggest that policies to reduce pressures to publish might be, as currently conceived, ineffective, whereas establishing policies and structures to handle allegations of scientific misconduct, promoting transparency and mutual criticism between colleagues, and bolstering training and mentoring of young researchers might best protect the integrity of future science,” the paper adds.

holly.else@tesglobal.com

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

James Fryer illustration (27 July 2017)

It is not Luddism to be cautious about destroying an academic publishing industry that has served us well, says Marilyn Deegan

Jeffrey Beall, associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver

Creator of controversial predatory journals blacklist says some peers are failing to warn of dangers of disreputable publishers

Hand squeezing stress ball
Working 55 hours per week, the loss of research periods, slashed pensions, increased bureaucracy, tiny budgets and declining standards have finally forced Michael Edwards out
Kayaker and jet skiiers

Nazima Kadir’s social circle reveals a range of alternative careers for would-be scholars, and often with better rewards than academia

hole in ground

‘Drastic action’ required to fix multibillion-pound shortfall in Universities Superannuation Scheme, expert warns