Scientific misconduct: A cross-sectional study of the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers.

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Cristina Candal-Pedreira, Ali Ghaddar, Mónica Pérez-Ríos, Leonor Varela-Lema, Carlos Álvarez-Dardet, Alberto Ruano-Ravina
{"title":"Scientific misconduct: A cross-sectional study of the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers.","authors":"Cristina Candal-Pedreira, Ali Ghaddar, Mónica Pérez-Ríos, Leonor Varela-Lema, Carlos Álvarez-Dardet, Alberto Ruano-Ravina","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2284965","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study sought to identify the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers regarding different aspects relating to scientific misconduct, both overall and by gender, years of research experience, and type of research institution. This is a cross-sectional study based on an anonymous online survey, targeting researchers in the field of biomedicine. The survey comprised a first block (13 questions) covering sociodemographic data, and a second block (14 questions) covering researchers' perceptions, attitudes and experiences. A descriptive analysis was performed. 403 researchers answered the survey: 51.1% (<i>n</i> = 205) women, median age 45 years. The observed frequency of scientific misconduct was 78.8%. Additionally, 43.3% of researchers acknowledged having intentionally engaged in some type of scientific misconduct (self-reported frequency). The most frequent type of scientific misconduct was false authorship. The most frequent types of both observed and self-reported scientific misconduct did not appear to differ by years of experience but did differ by gender and type of research institution. In conclusion, there is a high frequency of scientific misconduct among Spanish biomedical science researchers as 4 of 10 researchers recognized that took part in any type of scientific misconduct. There are differences between the most frequent types of misconduct according to different characteristics, mainly type of institution.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"393-416"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2284965","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study sought to identify the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers regarding different aspects relating to scientific misconduct, both overall and by gender, years of research experience, and type of research institution. This is a cross-sectional study based on an anonymous online survey, targeting researchers in the field of biomedicine. The survey comprised a first block (13 questions) covering sociodemographic data, and a second block (14 questions) covering researchers' perceptions, attitudes and experiences. A descriptive analysis was performed. 403 researchers answered the survey: 51.1% (n = 205) women, median age 45 years. The observed frequency of scientific misconduct was 78.8%. Additionally, 43.3% of researchers acknowledged having intentionally engaged in some type of scientific misconduct (self-reported frequency). The most frequent type of scientific misconduct was false authorship. The most frequent types of both observed and self-reported scientific misconduct did not appear to differ by years of experience but did differ by gender and type of research institution. In conclusion, there is a high frequency of scientific misconduct among Spanish biomedical science researchers as 4 of 10 researchers recognized that took part in any type of scientific misconduct. There are differences between the most frequent types of misconduct according to different characteristics, mainly type of institution.

科学不端行为:西班牙研究人员的看法,态度和经验的横断面研究。
这项研究试图确定西班牙研究人员对与科学不端行为有关的不同方面的看法、态度和经验,包括总体上和按性别、研究经验年数和研究机构类型划分的看法、态度和经验。这是一项基于匿名在线调查的横断面研究,目标是生物医学领域的研究人员。该调查包括第一部分(13个问题)涵盖社会人口统计数据,第二部分(14个问题)涵盖研究人员的看法、态度和经验。进行描述性分析。403名研究人员回答了调查,其中51.1% (n = 205)为女性,中位年龄45岁。观察到的科学不端行为频率为78.8%,43.3%的研究人员承认故意从事某种类型的科学不端行为(自我报告频率)。最常见的科学不端行为是作者造假。观察到的和自我报告的最常见的科学不端行为类型似乎并不因经验的年限而不同,但确实因性别和研究机构的类型而不同。总之,西班牙生物医学科学研究人员的科学不端行为频率很高。10个研究人员中有4个承认参与了任何类型的科学不端行为。根据不同的特点,最常见的不当行为类型也存在差异,主要是机构类型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信