Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands
Level 4 - case-series / case-control
Cross-sectional survey (by design analogy, not clinical CEBM)
OpenAlex W4212845006 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263023
What was done
The National Survey on Research Integrity surveyed academic researchers across all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. The survey measured self-reported engagement in data fabrication, falsification, and 11 questionable research practices (QRPs) over the previous three years, evaluated against 12 explanatory factor scales. The study employed identity protection and the randomized response technique for questions regarding research misconduct. A total of 6,813 respondents completed the survey.
What was found
The estimated prevalence was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9 to 5.7) for fabrication and 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8 to 5.6) for falsification. Prevalence across individual QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5 to 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4 to 18.7), with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1 to 52.5) of respondents reporting frequent engagement in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate, junior researcher, or male was associated with higher odds of frequent QRP engagement. Lower odds of misconduct were associated with scientific norm subscription (OR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63 to 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.88). Publication pressure was associated with higher odds of frequent QRP engagement (OR 1.22; 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.30).
Why it matters
This study provides nationwide empirical estimates of misconduct and questionable practices across academic disciplines, demonstrating that publication pressure and perceived lack of reviewer oversight track with increased questionable practices.
Limits
The study is cross-sectional and observational, precluding causal conclusions. Data rely on self-report over a three-year recall period and reflect only academic institutions in the Netherlands. Response rate and non-response bias are not reported in the abstract.
Cited by
- context The pressure to publish papers in top-tier journals is one of the major causes and the strongest driver of scientific fraud.