Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Original Research/Scholarship
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Irresponsible research practices damaging the value of science has been an increasing concern among researchers, but previous work failed to estimate the prevalence of all forms of irresponsible research behavior. Additionally, these analyses have not included articles published in the last decade from 2011 to 2020. This meta-analysis provides an updated meta-analysis that calculates the pooled estimates of research misconduct (RM) and questionable research practices (QRPs), and explores the factors associated with the prevalence of these issues. The estimates, committing RM concern at least 1 of FFP (falsification, fabrication, plagiarism) and (unspecified) QRPs concern 1 or more QRPs, were 2.9% (95% CI 2.1–3.8%) and 12.5% (95% CI 10.5–14.7%), respectively. In addition, 15.5% (95% CI 12.4–19.2%) of researchers witnessed others who had committed at least 1 RM, while 39.7% (95% CI 35.6–44.0%) were aware of others who had used at least 1 QRP. The results document that response proportion, limited recall period, career level, disciplinary background and locations all affect significantly the prevalence of these issues. This meta-analysis addresses a gap in existing meta-analyses and estimates the prevalence of all forms of RM and QRPs, thus providing a better understanding of irresponsible research behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Full data from the current meta-analysis can be retrieved from Harvard Dataverse (Available at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/F9C8OK).

Code availability

The code for the analysis can be retrieved from Harvard Dataverse (Available at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/F9C8OK).

References

  • Adeleye, O. A., & Adebamowo, C. A. (2012). Factors associated with research wrongdoing in Nigeria. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(5), 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agnoli, F., Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L., Albiero, P., & Cubelli, R. (2017). Questionable research practices among Italian research psychologists. PLoS ONE, 12(3), 0172792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • All European Academies. (2017). The European code of conduct for research integrity revised edition. https://allea.org/code-of-conduct. Accessed 4 April 2021.

  • Allen, G. N., Ball, N. L., & Smith, H. J. (2011). Information systems research behaviors: What are the normative standards? Mis Quarterly, 35(3), 533–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awasthi, S., & Ranjan, S. (2019). Perception and attitude towards data cooking: A perspective of LIS research scholars. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2872.

  • Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., Pollack, J. M., White, C. D., Batchelor, J. H., Whelpley, C. E., et al. (2016). Questions about questionable research practices in the field of management: A guest commentary. Journal of Management, 42(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebeau, M. J., & Davis, E. L. (1996). Survey of ethical issues in dental research. Journal of Dental Research, 75(2), 845–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedeian, A. G., Taylor, S. G., & Miller, A. N. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4), 715–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 1088–1101.

  • Braun, M., & Roussos, A. J. (2012). Psychotherapy researchers: Reported misbehaviors and opinions. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(5), 25–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruton, S. V., Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2020). Ethical consistency and experience: An attempt to influence researcher attitudes toward questionable research practices through reading prompts. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 15(3), 216–226.

  • Burgess, G. L., & Mullen, D. (2002). Observations of ethical misconduct among industrial hygienists in England. AIHA Journal, 63(2), 151–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhingra, D., & Mishra, D. (2014). Publication misconduct among medical professionals in India. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 11(2), 104–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dotterweich, D. P., & Garrison, S. (1998). Research ethics of business academic researchers at AACSB institutions. Teaching Business Ethics, 1(4), 431–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, S., Derish, P., Leash, E., & Ordway, S. (1996). Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(1), 89–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, H., Parker, T., Nakagawa, S., Barnett, A., & Fidler, F. (2018). Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution. PLoS ONE, 13(7), e0200303.

  • Gardner, W., Lidz, C. W., & Hartwig, K. C. (2005). Authors’ reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 26(2), 244–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geggie, D. (2001). A survey of newly appointed consultants’ attitudes towards research fraud. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27(5), 344–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, J. L. (1993). Perceptions concerning research integrity and the practice of data audit in the biotechnology industry. Accountability in Research, 3(2–3), 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, L. J., & Shamoo, A. E. (1994). Results of a survey on research practices, completed by attendees at the third conference on research policies and quality assurance. Accountability in Research, 3, 275–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godecharle, S., Fieuws, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2017). Scientists still behaving badly? A survey within industry and universities. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(6), 1697–1717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, M., & Goldberg, L. (1994). Ethical challenges to risk scientists: An exploratory analysis of survey data. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 19(2), 223–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, D. A., Hill, S. R., Doran, E., Newby, D. A., Henderson, K. M., Maguire, J., et al. (2005). Medical specialists and pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research: A survey of the Australian experience. Medical Journal of Australia, 182(11), 557–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 327(7414), 557–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, B., Helgesson, G., Juth, N., & Holm, S. (2015). Scientific dishonesty: A survey of doctoral students at the major medical faculties in Sweden and Norway. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10(4), 380–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, B., Jensen, L. B., Eriksen, M. B., Helgesson, G., Juth, N., & Holm, S. (2020). Research integrity among PhD students at the faculty of medicine: A comparison of three Scandinavian universities. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 15(4), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, B., Myhr, A. I., & Holm, S. (2013). Scientific dishonesty—a nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway. BMC Medical Ethics, 14(1), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, S., & Hofmann, B. (2018). Associations between attitudes towards scientific misconduct and self-reported behavior. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 25(5), 290–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, L. B., Kyvik, K. O., Leth-Larsen, R., & Eriksen, M. B. (2018). Research integrity among PhD students within clinical research at the University of Southern Denmark. Danish Medical Journal, 65(4), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalichman, M. W., & Friedman, P. J. (1992). A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine, 67(11), 769–775.

  • Kattenbraker, M. S. (2007). Health education research and publication: Ethical considerations and the response of health educators. PhD thesis, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, United States.

  • Koklu, N. (2003). Views of academicians on research ethics. Journal of Educational Sciences & Practices, 2(4), 138–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lensvelt-Mulders, G. J. L. M., Hox, J. J., van der Heijden, P. G. M., & Maas, C. J. M. (2005). Meta-analysis of randomized response research: Thirty-five years of validation. Sociological Methods & Research, 33(3), 319–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lock, S. (1988). Misconduct in medical research: Does it exist in Britain? British Medical Journal, 297, 1531–1535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, T. C., Errami, M., George, A. C., Sun, Z., & Garner, H. R. (2009). Scientific integrity: Responding to possible plagiarism. Science, 323(5919), 1293–1294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, D. S. (2015). Replication in psychological science. Psychological Science, 26(12), 1827–1832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, J. A., Bailey, C. D., Euzent, P. J., & Martin, T. L. (2001). Academic economists behaving badly? A survey on three areas of unethical behavior. Economic Inquiry, 39(1), 162–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, C., Campbell, S., & Doyle, H. (1998). Research misconduct: A pilot study of British addiction researchers. Addiction Research, 6(4), 371–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. J., & McMahon, D. (2004). An examination of ethical research conduct by experienced and novice accounting academics. Issues in Accounting Education, 19(4), 413–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAS-NAE-IOM (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine). (1992). Responsible science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process. National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Fostering integrity in research. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Necker, S. (2014). Scientific misbehavior in economics. Research Policy, 43(10), 1747–1759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilstun, T., Löfmark, R., & Lundqvist, A. (2010). Scientific dishonesty—questionnaire to doctoral students in Sweden. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(5), 315–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of the President. (2000). Federal research misconduct policy. https://ori.hhs.gov/federal-research-misconduct-policy. Accessed 4 April 2021.

  • Okonta, P. I., & Rossouw, T. (2013). Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria. Developing World Bioethics, 13(3), 149–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozturk, N., Armato, S. G., Giger, M. L., Serago, C. F., & Ross, L. F. (2013). Ethics and professionalism in medical physics: A survey of AAPM members. Medical Physics, 40(4), 047001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pupovac, V., & Fanelli, D. (2015). Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1331–1352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pupovac, V., Prijić-Samaržija, S., & Petrovečki, M. (2016). Research misconduct in the Croatian scientific community: A survey assessing the forms and characteristics of research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 165–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabelo, A., Farias, J., Sarmet, M., Joaquim, T., Hoersting, R., Victorino, L., et al. (2019). Questionable research practices among Brazilian psychological researchers: Results from a replication study and an international comparison. International Journal of Psychology, 55(4), 674–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rankin, M., & Esteves, M. D. (1997). Perceptions of scientific misconduct in nursing. Nursing Research, 46(5), 270–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranstam, J., Buyse, M., George, S. L., Evans, S., Geller, N. L., Scherrer, B., et al. (2000). Fraud in medical research: An international survey of biostatisticians. Controlled Clinical Trials, 21(5), 415–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohwer, A., Young, T., Wager, E., & Garner, P. (2017). Authorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers. British Medical Journal Open, 7, e018467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saberi-Karimian, M., Afshari, R., Movahhed, S., AmiriKeykhaee, F. F., Mohajer, F., et al. (2018). Different aspects of scientific misconduct among Iranian academic members. European Science Editing, 44(2), 28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, R. L., Polk, J., Williams, B., & Mavroudis, C. (1991). Misconduct and fraud in research: Social and legislative issues symposium of the Society of University Surgeons. Surgery, 110, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steneck, N. H. (2007). Introduction to the responsible conduct of research. US Government Printing Office.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Swazey, J. P., Anderson, M. S., Lewis, K. S., & Louis, S. S. (1993). Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist, 81(6), 542–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tangney, J. P. (1987). Fraud will out-or will it? New Scientist, 115(1572), 62–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tijdink, J. K., Bouter, L. M., Veldkamp, C. L., van de Ven, P. M., Wicherts, J. M., & Smulders et al. (2016). Personality traits are associated with research misbehavior in Dutch scientists: a cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE, 11(9), e0163251.

  • Titus, S. L., Wells, J. A., & Rhoades, L. J. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453(7198), 980–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VSNU. (2018). Netherlands code of conduct for research integrity. https://www.wur.nl/en/show/Netherlands-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-1.htm. Accessed 4 April 2021.

  • Were, E., Kaguiri, E., & Kiplagat, J. (2020). Perceptions of occurrence of research misconduct and related factors among Kenyan investigators engaged in HIV research. Accountability in Research, 27(6), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Han Xiao for selecting eligible studies and extracting data and Yanyan Lin for developing the research strategy.

Funding

There was no funding for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Jinzhai Road 96, Hefei, 230026, Anhui, People’s Republic of China

    Yu Xie, Kai Wang & Yan Kong

  2. Student Working Office, Xuancheng Campus, Hefei University of Technology, Tunxi Road 193, Hefei, 230009, Anhui, People’s Republic of China

    Yu Xie

Authors
  1. Yu Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kai Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yan Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Designed research: YX and YK; collected data: YX; analyzed data: YX; wrote the paper: YX, KW and YK; revised the paper: YX, KW and YK.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yan Kong.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 602 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 218 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xie, Y., Wang, K. & Kong, Y. Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sci Eng Ethics 27, 41 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation