How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A case study of Indian researchers.

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Ishfaq Ahmad Palla, Mangkhollen Singson
{"title":"How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A case study of Indian researchers.","authors":"Ishfaq Ahmad Palla,&nbsp;Mangkhollen Singson","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2078712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite ample evidence of increasing research misconduct in India, little attention has been paid to understanding researchers' perception of research integrity and research misconduct among young Indian researchers. Interviews among 30 research scholars were conducted at Pondicherry University in India to understand their experience and perception of research misconduct. The top three influencing factors for scientific misconduct, according to the participants, were unavailability of adequate funds (35%), pressure from research supervisors (29%), and desperation to publish articles (25%). The participants had witnessed research misconduct in different forms i.e., data fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, plagiarism was the most often cited cause of misbehavior in our interviews. Majority of participants have witnessed or personally encountered multiple instances where authorship conflicts occurred. The other questionable research practices highlighted in the study were improper citations, authorship disputes like gift and ghost authorships, misrepresentation of statistical data, failure to publish negative results. In an increasingly diverse and changing research environment, our research calls for practical research guidelines based on honesty, openness, and accountability that can help articulate and strengthen scientists' core values. More importantly, scientific misconduct can only be prevented by using a multifaceted strategy that includes identifying instances of scientific misconduct and implementing suitable deterrents and treatments that could change the behavior associated with such misconduct.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2078712","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/5/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Despite ample evidence of increasing research misconduct in India, little attention has been paid to understanding researchers' perception of research integrity and research misconduct among young Indian researchers. Interviews among 30 research scholars were conducted at Pondicherry University in India to understand their experience and perception of research misconduct. The top three influencing factors for scientific misconduct, according to the participants, were unavailability of adequate funds (35%), pressure from research supervisors (29%), and desperation to publish articles (25%). The participants had witnessed research misconduct in different forms i.e., data fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, plagiarism was the most often cited cause of misbehavior in our interviews. Majority of participants have witnessed or personally encountered multiple instances where authorship conflicts occurred. The other questionable research practices highlighted in the study were improper citations, authorship disputes like gift and ghost authorships, misrepresentation of statistical data, failure to publish negative results. In an increasingly diverse and changing research environment, our research calls for practical research guidelines based on honesty, openness, and accountability that can help articulate and strengthen scientists' core values. More importantly, scientific misconduct can only be prevented by using a multifaceted strategy that includes identifying instances of scientific misconduct and implementing suitable deterrents and treatments that could change the behavior associated with such misconduct.

研究人员如何看待研究不端行为?印度研究人员的案例研究。
尽管有充分证据表明印度的研究不端行为越来越多,但人们很少关注了解研究人员对印度年轻研究人员的研究诚信和研究不端行为的看法。印度本地治里大学对30名研究学者进行了访谈,以了解他们对研究不当行为的经历和看法。根据参与者的说法,科学不端行为的前三大影响因素是缺乏足够的资金(35%)、来自研究主管的压力(29%)和急于发表文章(25%)。参与者目睹了不同形式的研究不当行为,即数据伪造、伪造和剽窃。然而,在我们的采访中,抄袭是最常被提及的不当行为的原因。大多数参与者都目睹或亲身经历过多次发生作者冲突的情况。研究中强调的其他有问题的研究实践包括不当引用、署名争议(如天赋和幽灵作者)、对统计数据的歪曲、未能公布负面结果。在一个日益多样化和不断变化的研究环境中,我们的研究需要基于诚实、开放和问责的实用研究指南,以帮助阐明和加强科学家的核心价值观。更重要的是,只有使用多方面的策略才能防止科学不端行为,包括识别科学不端行为的实例,并实施适当的威慑和治疗措施,以改变与此类不端行为相关的行为。
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