Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity
Level 4 - case-series / case-control
Matched case-control study (by design analogy, not clinical CEBM)
OpenAlex W597326641 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127556
What was done
A retrospective matched case-control study evaluated whether structural, sociological, and career-stage factors predict retractions (used as a proxy for misconduct) or corrections (used as a proxy for honest error). Bibliographic and personal data were gathered for all co-authors of papers retracted (N = 611) or corrected (N = 2,226) in 2010–2011, along with journal- and issue-matched control papers (N = 1,181 for retractions, N = 4,285 for corrections). Data were analyzed using conditional logistic regression.
What was found
The abstract reports directional findings without numerical effect sizes, odds ratios, or confidence intervals. Retractions were significantly more likely for authors in the earliest phases of their careers, in countries lacking research integrity policies, in countries where individual publication performance is rewarded with cash, and in cultures where mutual criticism is hampered. Male gender did not predict misconduct. High-impact and highly productive researchers, as well as those in countries with higher perceived publication pressures, were less likely to have retracted papers and more likely to publish corrections.
Why it matters
This study challenges the common assumption that individual publish-or-perish pressure or male gender drive scientific misconduct, pointing instead to specific structural incentives and early-career vulnerabilities. It suggests integrity efforts should prioritize mentoring, clear institutional policies, and removing direct cash-for-publication rewards.
Limits
No quantitative effect sizes or statistical test values are provided in the abstract. Retractions and corrections are indirect proxies for misconduct and honest errors, meaning differences could reflect variation in institutional detection and reporting rather than true incidence. The sample is restricted to papers retracted or corrected in a two-year window (2010–2011).
Cited by
- contradicts The pressure to publish papers in top-tier journals is one of the major causes and the strongest driver of scientific fraud.