No abstract

Abstract. Recent metascience investigations of the N-pact factor (NF; median sample size of studies published in a journal) have revealed NFs of merely about 100 in fields like social, sport, and exercise psychology. Journal NF has also been shown to correlate negatively with journal impact factors (JIF), implying that smaller studies appear in more prestigious journals. In this first long-term and largest NF analysis to date (3,699 articles coded), annual NFs of two personality psychology journals were tracked over 38 years since their inception in 1980. Overall NF was about 190, gradually increased over time, and within-journal NF-JIF correlations were positive. Online samples and articles featuring supplemental files presented larger NFs, whereas those involving student samples had smaller ones. Sample size distributions showed multimodality, and surplusses of even-numbered sample sizes and of those just beyond 100 were evident. An NF statement, accompanying authors’ submitted papers, is suggested.

Worldwide, higher education institutions made quick and often unprepared shifts from on-site to online examination in 2020 due to the COVID-19 health crisis. This development sparked an ongoing debate on whether this development made it easier for students to cheat. We investigated whether students indeed cheated more often in online than in on-site exams and whether the use of online exams was also associated with higher rates of other behaviors deemed as academic dishonesty. To answer our research questions, we questioned 1,608 German students from a wide variety of higher education institutions about their behavior during the summer semester of 2020. The participating students reported that they cheated more frequently in online than in on-site exams. Effects on other measures of academic dishonesty were more negligible. These results speak for the notion that the swift application of ad-hoc online testing during 2020 has led to negative consequences for academic integrity.

Academic dishonesty is a pervasive problem undermining the effectiveness of educational institutions. From a motivational perspective, researchers have proposed achievement goals as antecedents of academic dishonesty. Empirical findings corroborate the notion that mastery goals (focus on learning and competence development) are negatively linked to academic dishonesty. However, even though theoretical considerations suggest positive links between performance goals (focus on competence demonstration) and academic dishonesty, empirical findings are mixed. To provide a better understanding of how goals matter for academic dishonesty, we conducted three-level meta-analyses encompassing 163 effect sizes from 33 studies and a total of 19,787 participants. We found a disproportional use of correlational designs (using self-report measures of academic dishonesty) and personal goal measures (opposed to surrounding goal structures). Evidence of publication bias was not found. Our results confirmed the expected negative associations between mastery goals and academic dishonesty and revealed heterogenous findings for performance goals, with indications of positive associations within behavioral and intentional dishonesty measures, but not within self-reports. To further clarify the associations between achievement goals and academic dishonesty, we call for more methodological rigor in the measurement of goals and dishonesty as well as multi-methods approaches when investigating their interplay.

24Academic dishonesty-the inclination to cheat, fabricate, falsify, and plagiarize in an 25 academic context-is a highly prevalent problem with dire consequences for society. The 26 present meta-analysis systematically examined associations between academic dishonesty 27 and personality traits of the Big Five, the HEXACO model, Machiavellianism, narcissism, 28 subclinical psychopathy, and the Dark Core. We provide an update and extension of the only 29 meta-analysis on this topic by Giluk and Postlethwaite (2015), synthesizing in total 89 effect 30 sizes from 50 studies-containing 38,189 participants from 23 countries. Multilevel meta-31 analytical modelling showed that academic dishonesty was positively correlated with the dark 32 traits, and negatively correlated with openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and 33 honesty-humility. The moderate-to-high effect size heterogeneity-ranging from I2 = 57% to 34 91%-could only be partially explained by moderator analyses. The observed relationships 35 appear robust with respect to publication bias and measurement error, and can be generalized 36 to a surprisingly large scope (across sexes, continents, scales, and study quality). Future 37 research needs to examine these associations with validated and more nuanced scales for 38 academic dishonesty. 39 40