TY - JOUR
T1 - Prevalence of responsible research practices among academics in The Netherlands
AU - Gopalakrishna, Gowri
AU - Wicherts, Jelte M
AU - Vink, Gerko
AU - Stoop, Ineke
AU - van den Akker, Olmo R
AU - Ter Riet, Gerben
AU - Bouter, Lex M
N1 - Copyright: © 2022 Gopalakrishna G et al.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 -
Background: Traditionally, research integrity studies have focused on research misbehaviors and their explanations. Over time, attention has shifted towards preventing questionable research practices and promoting responsible ones. However, data on the prevalence of responsible research practices, especially open methods, open codes and open data and their underlying associative factors, remains scarce.
Methods: We conducted a web-based anonymized questionnaire, targeting all academic researchers working at or affiliated to a university or university medical center in The Netherlands, to investigate the prevalence and potential explanatory factors of 11 responsible research practices.
Results: A total of 6,813 academics completed the survey, the results of which show that prevalence of responsible practices differs substantially across disciplines and ranks, with 99 percent avoiding plagiarism in their work but less than 50 percent pre-registering a research protocol. Arts and humanities scholars as well as PhD candidates and junior researchers engaged less often in responsible research practices. Publication pressure negatively affected responsible practices, while mentoring, scientific norms subscription and funding pressure stimulated them.
Conclusions: Understanding the prevalence of responsible research practices across disciplines and ranks, as well as their associated explanatory factors, can help to systematically address disciplinary- and academic rank-specific obstacles, and thereby facilitate responsible conduct of research.
AB -
Background: Traditionally, research integrity studies have focused on research misbehaviors and their explanations. Over time, attention has shifted towards preventing questionable research practices and promoting responsible ones. However, data on the prevalence of responsible research practices, especially open methods, open codes and open data and their underlying associative factors, remains scarce.
Methods: We conducted a web-based anonymized questionnaire, targeting all academic researchers working at or affiliated to a university or university medical center in The Netherlands, to investigate the prevalence and potential explanatory factors of 11 responsible research practices.
Results: A total of 6,813 academics completed the survey, the results of which show that prevalence of responsible practices differs substantially across disciplines and ranks, with 99 percent avoiding plagiarism in their work but less than 50 percent pre-registering a research protocol. Arts and humanities scholars as well as PhD candidates and junior researchers engaged less often in responsible research practices. Publication pressure negatively affected responsible practices, while mentoring, scientific norms subscription and funding pressure stimulated them.
Conclusions: Understanding the prevalence of responsible research practices across disciplines and ranks, as well as their associated explanatory factors, can help to systematically address disciplinary- and academic rank-specific obstacles, and thereby facilitate responsible conduct of research.
KW - Humanities
KW - Humans
KW - Netherlands
KW - Prevalence
KW - Research Personnel
KW - Universities
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85138188243&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.12688/f1000research.110664.2
DO - 10.12688/f1000research.110664.2
M3 - Article
C2 - 36128558
SN - 2046-1402
VL - 11
SP - 1
EP - 34
JO - F1000Research
JF - F1000Research
M1 - 471
ER -