Estimating the prevalence of researcher misconduct: a study of UK academics within biological sciences

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard Standard

Estimating the prevalence of researcher misconduct: a study of UK academics within biological sciences. / Roberts, David L.; St John, Freya A. V.
In: PeerJ, 09.09.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

HarvardHarvard

APA

CBE

MLA

VancouverVancouver

Author

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Estimating the prevalence of researcher misconduct

T2 - a study of UK academics within biological sciences

AU - Roberts, David L.

AU - St John, Freya A. V.

PY - 2014/9/9

Y1 - 2014/9/9

N2 - Misconduct in academic research is undoubtedly increasing, but studies estimating the prevalence of such behaviour suffer from biases inherent in researching sensitive topics. We compared the unmatched-count technique (UCT) and the crosswise-model (CM), two methods specifically designed to increase honest reporting to sensitive questions, with direct questioning (DQ) for five types of misconduct in the biological sciences. UCT performed better than CM and either outperformed or produced similar estimates to DQ depending on the question. Estimates of academic misconduct increased with decreasing seriousness of the behaviour, from c. 0% for data fabrication to >68% for inappropriate co-authorship. Results show that research into even minor issues of misconduct, is sensitive, suggesting that future studies should consider using specialised questioning techniques as they are more likely to yield accurate figures.

AB - Misconduct in academic research is undoubtedly increasing, but studies estimating the prevalence of such behaviour suffer from biases inherent in researching sensitive topics. We compared the unmatched-count technique (UCT) and the crosswise-model (CM), two methods specifically designed to increase honest reporting to sensitive questions, with direct questioning (DQ) for five types of misconduct in the biological sciences. UCT performed better than CM and either outperformed or produced similar estimates to DQ depending on the question. Estimates of academic misconduct increased with decreasing seriousness of the behaviour, from c. 0% for data fabrication to >68% for inappropriate co-authorship. Results show that research into even minor issues of misconduct, is sensitive, suggesting that future studies should consider using specialised questioning techniques as they are more likely to yield accurate figures.

U2 - 10.7717/peerj.562

DO - 10.7717/peerj.562

M3 - Article

JO - PeerJ

JF - PeerJ

SN - 2167-8359

M1 - e562

ER -