{"title":"2015 - 2023年8年科研诚信实证研究综述","authors":"Baptiste Vendé, Anouk Barberousse, Stéphanie Ruphy","doi":"10.1186/s41073-025-00163-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research on research integrity (RI) has grown exponentially over the past several decades. Although the earliest publications emerged in the 1980 s, more than half of the existing literature has been produced within the last five years. Given that the most recent comprehensive literature review is now eight years old, the present study aims to extend and update previous findings.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of the Web of Science and Constellate databases for articles published between 2015 and 2023. To structure our overview and guide our inquiry, we addressed the following seven broad questions about the field:-What topics does the empirical literature on RI explore? What are the primary objectives of the empirical literature on RI? What methodologies are prevalent in the empirical literature on RI? What populations or organizations are studied in the empirical literature on RI? Where are the empirical studies on RI conducted? Where is the empirical literature on RI published? To what degree is the general literature on RI grounded in empirical research? Additionally, we used the previous scoping review as a benchmark to identify emerging trends and shifts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search yielded a total of 3,282 studies, of which 660 articles met our inclusion criteria. All research questions were comprehensively addressed. Notably, we observed a significant shift in methodologies: the reliance on interviews and surveys decreased from 51 to 30%, whereas the application of meta-scientific methods increased from 17 to 31%. In terms of theoretical orientation, the previously dominant \"Bad Apple\" hypothesis declined from 54 to 30%, while the \"Wicked System\" hypothesis increased from 46 to 52%. Furthermore, there has been a pronounced trend toward testing solutions, rising from 31 to 56% at the expense of merely describing the problem, which fell from 69 to 44%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Three gaps highlighted eight years ago by the previous scoping review remain unresolved. Research on decision makers (e.g., scientists in positions of power, policymakers, accounting for 3%), the private research sector and patents (4.7%), and the peer review system (0.3%) continues to be underexplored. Even more concerning, if current trends persist, these gaps are likely to become increasingly problematic.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"10 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":10.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12042460/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From 2015 to 2023, eight years of empirical research on research integrity: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Baptiste Vendé, Anouk Barberousse, Stéphanie Ruphy\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41073-025-00163-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research on research integrity (RI) has grown exponentially over the past several decades. Although the earliest publications emerged in the 1980 s, more than half of the existing literature has been produced within the last five years. Given that the most recent comprehensive literature review is now eight years old, the present study aims to extend and update previous findings.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of the Web of Science and Constellate databases for articles published between 2015 and 2023. To structure our overview and guide our inquiry, we addressed the following seven broad questions about the field:-What topics does the empirical literature on RI explore? What are the primary objectives of the empirical literature on RI? What methodologies are prevalent in the empirical literature on RI? What populations or organizations are studied in the empirical literature on RI? Where are the empirical studies on RI conducted? Where is the empirical literature on RI published? To what degree is the general literature on RI grounded in empirical research? Additionally, we used the previous scoping review as a benchmark to identify emerging trends and shifts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search yielded a total of 3,282 studies, of which 660 articles met our inclusion criteria. All research questions were comprehensively addressed. Notably, we observed a significant shift in methodologies: the reliance on interviews and surveys decreased from 51 to 30%, whereas the application of meta-scientific methods increased from 17 to 31%. In terms of theoretical orientation, the previously dominant \\\"Bad Apple\\\" hypothesis declined from 54 to 30%, while the \\\"Wicked System\\\" hypothesis increased from 46 to 52%. Furthermore, there has been a pronounced trend toward testing solutions, rising from 31 to 56% at the expense of merely describing the problem, which fell from 69 to 44%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Three gaps highlighted eight years ago by the previous scoping review remain unresolved. Research on decision makers (e.g., scientists in positions of power, policymakers, accounting for 3%), the private research sector and patents (4.7%), and the peer review system (0.3%) continues to be underexplored. Even more concerning, if current trends persist, these gaps are likely to become increasingly problematic.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12042460/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-025-00163-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-025-00163-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:在过去的几十年里,关于科研诚信的研究呈指数级增长。虽然最早的出版物出现在20世纪80年代,但现有文献的一半以上是在最近五年内出版的。鉴于最近的综合文献综述已有8年历史,本研究旨在扩展和更新先前的研究结果。方法:系统检索Web of Science和constellation数据库中2015 - 2023年间发表的文章。为了构建我们的概述并指导我们的调查,我们解决了关于该领域的以下七个广泛问题:关于国际扶轮的实证文献探讨了哪些主题?国际扶轮实证文献的主要目标是什么?在国际扶轮的实证文献中,什么方法学是流行的?在国际扶轮的实证文献中研究了哪些人口或组织?国际扶轮的实证研究在哪里进行?关于RI的实证文献在哪里发表?关于国际扶轮的一般文献在多大程度上是基于实证研究?此外,我们使用之前的范围审查作为基准,以确定新出现的趋势和变化。结果:我们共检索到3282篇研究,其中660篇符合我们的纳入标准。所有的研究问题都得到了全面的解决。值得注意的是,我们观察到方法论的重大转变:对访谈和调查的依赖从51%下降到30%,而元科学方法的应用从17%增加到31%。在理论取向上,先前占主导地位的“坏苹果”假说从54%下降到30%,而“邪恶系统”假说从46%上升到52%。此外,有一个明显的趋势是测试解决方案,从31%上升到56%,代价是仅仅描述问题,从69%下降到44%。结论:八年前的范围审查强调的三个差距仍然没有解决。对决策者(例如,有权力的科学家、政策制定者,占3%)、私营研究部门和专利(4.7%)以及同行评议制度(0.3%)的研究仍未得到充分探索。更令人担忧的是,如果目前的趋势持续下去,这些差距可能会变得越来越成问题。
From 2015 to 2023, eight years of empirical research on research integrity: a scoping review.
Background: Research on research integrity (RI) has grown exponentially over the past several decades. Although the earliest publications emerged in the 1980 s, more than half of the existing literature has been produced within the last five years. Given that the most recent comprehensive literature review is now eight years old, the present study aims to extend and update previous findings.
Method: We conducted a systematic search of the Web of Science and Constellate databases for articles published between 2015 and 2023. To structure our overview and guide our inquiry, we addressed the following seven broad questions about the field:-What topics does the empirical literature on RI explore? What are the primary objectives of the empirical literature on RI? What methodologies are prevalent in the empirical literature on RI? What populations or organizations are studied in the empirical literature on RI? Where are the empirical studies on RI conducted? Where is the empirical literature on RI published? To what degree is the general literature on RI grounded in empirical research? Additionally, we used the previous scoping review as a benchmark to identify emerging trends and shifts.
Results: Our search yielded a total of 3,282 studies, of which 660 articles met our inclusion criteria. All research questions were comprehensively addressed. Notably, we observed a significant shift in methodologies: the reliance on interviews and surveys decreased from 51 to 30%, whereas the application of meta-scientific methods increased from 17 to 31%. In terms of theoretical orientation, the previously dominant "Bad Apple" hypothesis declined from 54 to 30%, while the "Wicked System" hypothesis increased from 46 to 52%. Furthermore, there has been a pronounced trend toward testing solutions, rising from 31 to 56% at the expense of merely describing the problem, which fell from 69 to 44%.
Conclusion: Three gaps highlighted eight years ago by the previous scoping review remain unresolved. Research on decision makers (e.g., scientists in positions of power, policymakers, accounting for 3%), the private research sector and patents (4.7%), and the peer review system (0.3%) continues to be underexplored. Even more concerning, if current trends persist, these gaps are likely to become increasingly problematic.