Abstract
Empirical studies have revealed a disturbing prevalence of research misconduct in a wide variety of disciplines, although not, to date, in the areas of ethics and philosophy. This study aims to provide empirical evidence on perceptions of how serious a problem research misconduct is in these two disciplines in Spain, particularly regarding the effects that the model used to evaluate academics’ research performance may have on their ethical behaviour. The methodological triangulation applied in the study combines a questionnaire, a debate at the annual meeting of scientific association, and in-depth interviews. Of the 541 questionnaires sent out, 201 responses were obtained (37.1% of the total sample), with a significant difference in the participation of researchers in philosophy (30.5%) and in ethics (52.8%); 26 researchers took part in the debate and 14 interviews were conducted. The questionnaire results reveal that 91.5% of the respondents considered research misconduct to be on the rise; 63.2% considered at least three of the fraudulent practices referred to in the study to be commonplace, and 84.1% identified two or more such practices. The researchers perceived a high prevalence of duplicate publication (66.5%) and self-plagiarism (59.0%), use of personal influence (57.5%) and citation manipulation (44.0%), in contrast to a low perceived incidence of data falsification or fabrication (10.0%). The debate and the interviews corroborated these data. Researchers associated the spread of these misconducts with the research evaluation model applied in Spain.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
A summary of the results gathered in each of the three processes conducted was published in Spanish in an open report. Available at: http://repositori.uji.es/xmlui/handle/10234/189924
Change history
20 May 2021
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00309-6
References
Ana, J., Koehlmoos, T., Smith, R., & Yan, L. (2013). Research misconduct in low- and middle-income countries. Plos Medicine, 10(3), e1001315. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001315.
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5.
Ataie-Ashtiani, B. (2018). World map of scientific misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(5), 1653–1656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9939-6.
Bailey, C. D. (2019). Unethical practices by accounting researchers: Incidence, intentions, and insights. SSRR. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3501602.
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. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2010.56659889.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bretag, T., & Carapiet, S. (2007). A preliminary study to identify the extent of self-plagiarism in Australian academic research. Plagiary, 2(5), 92–103.
Bruton, S. (2014). Self-plagiarism and textual recycling: Legitimate forms of research misconduct. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 21(3), 176–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.848071.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619894435.
Buljan, I., Barać, L., & Marušić, A. (2018). How researchers perceive research misconduct in biomedicine and how they would prevent it: A qualitative study in a small scientific community. Accountability in Research, 25(4), 220–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1463162.
Butler, L. (2004). What happens when funding is linked to publication counts? In H. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Smoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 389–405). Dordrecht: Springer.
Cruz-Castro, L., & Sanz-Menendez, L. (2007). New legitimation models and the transformation of the public research organization field. International Studies of Management and Organization, 37(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825370102.
Dal-Ré, R. (2020). Analysis of biomedical Spanish articles retracted between 1970 and 2018. Medicina clínica, 154(4), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcle.2019.04.033.
De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43.
Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2010). Claroscuros de la evaluación científica en España. Medes Medicina en Español, 4, 25–29.
Delgado López-Cózar, E., Torres-Salinas, D., & Roldán-López, Á. (2007). El fraude en la ciencia: reflexiones a partir del caso Hwang. El profesional de la información, 16(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2007.mar.07.
Derrick, G. E., & Pavone, V. (2013). Democratising research evaluation: Achieving greater public engagement with bibliometrics-informed peer review. Science and Public Policy, 40(5), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct007.
Dhingra, D., & Mishra, D. (2014). Public misconduct among medical professionals in India. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 11(2), 104–107. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2014.026.
Dougherty, M. V. (2018). Correcting the scholarly record for research integrity. In the aftermath of plagiarism. Cham: Springer.
DuBois, J. M., Anderson, E. E., Chibnall, J., Carroll, K., Gibb, T., Ogbuka, C., & Rubbelke, T. (2013). Understanding research misconduct: A comparative analysis of 120 cases of professional wrongdoing. Accountability in Research, 20(5–6), 320–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822248.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS ONE, 5(4), e10271. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.
Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0127556.
Felaefel, M., Salem, M., Jaafar, R., Jassim, G., Edwards, H., Rashid-Doubell, F., et al. (2018). A cross-sectional survey study to assess prevalence and attitudes regarding research misconduct among investigators in the Middle East. Journal of Academic Ethics, 16(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9295-9.
Fonseca-Mora, M. C., Tur-Viñes, V., & Gutiérrez-San Miguel, B. (2014). Ética y revistas científicas españolas de Comunicación, Educación y Psicología: la percepción editora. Revista española de documentación científica, 37(4), e065. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2014.4.1151.
Gilbert, F. J., & Denison, A. R. (2003). Research misconduct. Clinical Radiology, 58(7), 499–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9260(03)00176-4.
Godecharle, S., Fieuws, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2018). Scientists still behaving badly? A survey within industry and universities. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(6), 1697–1717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9957-4.
Grey, A., Avenell, A., Gamble, G., & Bolland, M. (2019). Assessing and raising concerns about duplicate publication, authorship transgressions and data errors in a body of preclinical research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(22), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00152-w.
Gross, C. (2016). Scientific misconduct. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 693–711. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033437.
Hansson, S. O. (2008). Philosophical plagiarism. Theoria, 74(2), 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.2008.00010.x.
Hansson, S. O. (2015). The ethics of doing philosophy. Theoria, 81(2), 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12067.
Hansson, S. O. (2017). The ethics of doing ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9772-3.
Hansson, S. O. (2019). Philosophical plagiarism under the spotlight. Theoria, 85(2), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12183.
Haven, T. L., Bouter, L. M., Smulders, Y. M., & Tijdink, J. K. (2019a). Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks. PLoS ONE, 14(6), e0217931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217931.
Haven, T. L., Tijdink, J. K., Martinson, B. C., & Bouter, L. M. (2019b). Perceptions of research integrity climate differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields: Results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam. PLoS ONE, 14(1), e0210599. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210599.
Haven, T. L., Tijdink, J. K., Pasman, H. R., Widdershoven, G., Ter Riet, G., & Bouter, L. M. (2019c). Researchers’ perceptions of research misbehaviours: A mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Research Integrity and Peer Review. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0081-7.
Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007.
Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., Pratt, T. C., & Mays, R. D. (2019). The perceived causes of research misconduct among faculty members in the natural, social, and applied sciences. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1593352.
Hopp, C., & Hoover, G. A. (2017). How prevalent is academic misconduct in management research? Journal of Business Research, 80(C), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.07.003.
Horbach, S. S., & Halffman, W. W. (2019). The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism.’ Research Policy, 48(2), 492–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.004.
Jefferson, T. (1998). Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: Scientific misconduct or necessity? Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(2), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-998-0043-9.
Jiménez-Contreras, E., de Moya Anegón, F., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2003). The evolution of research activity in Spain: The impact of the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI). Research Policy, 32(1), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00008-2.
Jiménez-Contreras, E., López-Cózar, E. D., Ruiz-Pérez, R., & Fernández, V. M. (2002). Impact-factor rewards affect Spanish research. Nature, 417(6892), 898–898. https://doi.org/10.1038/417898b.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953.
Kokiwar, P. R., Gaiki, V. V., & Soodi Reddy, A. K. (2020). Prevalence and patterns of research misconduct among medical college faculties. MRIMS Journal of Health Sciences, 8(2), 35–39.
Krstić, S. B. (2015). Research integrity practices from the perspective of early-career researchers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1181–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9607-z.
Liao, Q. J., Zhang, Y. Y., Fan, Y. C., Zheng, M. H., Bai, Y., Eslick, G. D., et al. (2018). Perceptions of Chinese biomedical researchers towards academic misconduct: A comparison between 2015 and 2010. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 629–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9913-3.
Maggio, L., Dong, T., Driessen, E., & Artino, A., Jr. (2019). Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(2), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0501-x.
Marco-Cuenca, G., Salvador-Olivan, J. A., & Arquero-Avilés, R. (2019). Ética en la publicación científica biomedical. Revisión de las publicaciones retractadas en España. El profesional de la información, 28(2), e280222. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.mar.22.
Marini, G. (2018). Tools of individual evaluation and prestige recognition in Spain: How sexenio ‘mints the golden coin of authority.’ European Journal of Higher Education, 8(2), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2018.1428649.
Martin, B. R. (2013). Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42(5), 1005–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.011.
Martinson, B., Anderson, M., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a.
Moctezuma, S. E. (2016). Ética en la publicación de revistas académicas: percepción de los editores en ciencias sociales. Innovación Educativa, 16(72), 34–57.
Okonta, P., & Rossouw, T. (2013). Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria. Developing World Bioethics, 13(3), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00339.x.
Okonta, P. I., & Rossouw, T. (2014). Misconduct in research: A descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country. BMC Medical Ethics, 15(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-25.
Polonioli, A. (2017). New issues for new methods: Ethical and editorial challenges for an experimental philosophy. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23, 1009–1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9838-2.
Pupovac, V., & Fanelli, D. (2015). Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1331–1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9600-6.
Pupovac, V., Prijić-Samaržija, S., & Petrovečki, M. (2017). 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9767-0.
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(11), e018467. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018467.
Ruiz-Pérez, R., Delgado López-Cózar, E., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2010). Principios y criterios utilizados en España por la Comisión Nacional Evaluadora de la Actividad Investigadora (CNEAI) para la valoración de las publicaciones científicas: 1989–2009. Psicothema, 22(4), 898–908.
Stretton, S., Bramich, N. J., Keys, J. R., Monk, J. A., Ely, J. A., Haley, C., et al. (2012). Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: A systematic, retrospective study. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 28(10), 1575–1583. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2012.728131.
Tijdink, J. K., Verbeke, R., & Smulders, Y. M. (2014). Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(5), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264614552421.
Zwart, H. (2017). Tales of research misconduct. A lacanian diagnostics of integrity challenges in science novels. Switzerland: Springer Nature.
Funding
No funding was received for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict 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.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Feenstra, R.A., Delgado López-Cózar, E. & Pallarés-Domínguez, D. Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers’ Perceptions in Spain. Sci Eng Ethics 27, 1 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00278-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00278-w