home-icon
  • checkmark What are violations of research integrity?
  • checkmark Threats to research integrity
  • checkmark Fabrication of research results
  • checkmark Falsification of research results
  • checkmark Plagiarism in research
  • checkmark Other Unacceptable Practices
  • checkmark How to deal with violations of research integrity
  • checkmark References for module 4 - Violations of research integrity

Threats to research integrity

jumping-icon base

Threats to research integrity

There has been a great deal of fascination and speculation about the causes of violations of research integrity. For a long time, it was assumed that publication pressure was the main cause of violations of research integrity. The last decennia research, however, increasingly gives science-based insights on why researchers commit all kinds of violations. This shows a much more complicated story than a single cause explanation.

Throughout this course, we have mentioned several times the importance of looking at science as an eco-system with different stakeholders, different interests, roles and responsibilities, each of which has its impact on increasing the quality of research and preventing and dealing with violations of research integrity.

Not surprisingly, influencing factors, whether to increase or decrease the likelihood of engaging in violations of research integrity, lie in each of these aspects and together make up the explanatory framework. This also means that improving the quality of research/preventing violations of research integrity must be composed of different initiatives, targeting different stakeholders and different goals, to make an integrated impact. It entails that no single stakeholder stands alone in this: each must take responsibility and contribute.

Davis et al. (2007) analysed the purported causes of research misconduct and grouped them into 7 categories:

  • personal and professional stressors, such as pressure to produce, insufficient time, stressful jobs but also psychological problems, overcommitting, …
  • organizational climate, such as professional conflicts, insufficient supervision/mentoring, poor communication/coordination, …
  • job insecurities, such as inappropriate responsibility, strong competition for positions, …
  • rationalizations like jumping the gun to disseminate findings, lying in order to preserve the truth, …
  • personal inhibitions, such as a too difficult job/task, frustrations,
  • rationalizations coming from fear, apathy/dislike, avoiding degradation by others, …
  • personality factors that incline weaknesses in character like impatience, laziness, too much personal need for recognition, etc.
  • All these factors will come into play to a greater or lesser extent in an individual situation and  are likely to interact with each other.

Tijdink et al (2016) focussed on personality traits and showed that Machiavellianism is most strongly associated with research misbehavior. Machiavellianism being a person’s tendency to “be unemotional, detached from conventional morality and hence inclined to deceive and manipulate others, to focus on unmitigated achievement, and to give high priority to their own performance”. The association for narcissism and psychopathy was less clear.

Fanelli et al (2015) looked more closely at the research environment and supports that “scientific misconduct is more likely in countries that lack research integrity policies, in countries where individual publication performance is rewarded with cash, in cultures and situations were mutual criticism is hampered”. He also showed that “high-impact and productive researchers, and those working in countries in which pressures to publish are believed to be higher, are less-likely to produce retracted papers, and more likely to correct them.” Then again, committing misconduct is more likely in the earliest phases of a researcher’s career.

Treats to research integrity. Training video developed by the University of Amsterdam in which the following QRPs are explained: harking, p-hacking, cherry-picking and selective omission. 

Collaborating

Collaborative working can imply both risks and opportunities for researchers in terms of integrity. On the one hand, researchers are seen as collectively responsible for the integrity of the projects on which they work, so violations of research integrity may reflect badly on all involved, even if some partners were not involved in the violation. On the other hand, collaboration may provide extra controls and more rigorous checks that can reduce the chance of violations of research integrity occurring. 

Information on specific aspects of violations of research integrity in collaborative projects are covered in the other chapters. The ALLEA Code provides advice for preventing misconduct in collaborative projects: 

  • All partners in research collaborations take responsibility for the integrity of the research and its results. 
  • All partners in research collaborations formally agree at the outset, and monitor and adapt as necessary, the goals of the research and the process for communicating their research as transparently and openly as possible. 
  • All partners in research collaborations formally agree at the outset, and monitor and adapt as necessary, the expectations and standards concerning research integrity, the laws and regulations that will apply, protection of the intellectual property of collaborators, and procedures for handling conflicts and possible cases of misconduct. 
  • All partners in research collaborations are consulted and formally agree on submissions for publication of research results and other forms of dissemination or exploitation of the results.