Commentary: Perverse Incentives or Rotten Apples?

Abstract

Around 2% of the investigators admit to have falsified or fabricated data at least once. Also, 34% report to have been guilty to one or more questionable research practices, such as doing many statistical analyses and to publish only what fits their theoretical framework. Prevention of questionable research practices is very important. Universities should ensure that the training is in order and the research culture is adequate, and they should critically look at perverse incentives, such as a too high publication pressure, but also by ensuring proper guidelines, and by having a fair and transparent procedure for suspected violations of scientific integrity.

How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: a five-step approach (part 1/3)

“…It also increases efficiency, as others are able to check what your work in progress is, and avoid duplication [13,41]. A peer review process is part of the protocol by Cochrane [12] and also part of the publication policy of the journal Systematic Reviews.…”

Research Ethics 2.0: New Perspectives on Norms, Values, and Integrity in Genomic Research in Times of Even Scarcer Resources

“…An auspicious way to do this is by means of education. Bouter [12] suggests that education and training about scientific integrity for PhD students as well as for permanent academic staff should be implemented. This could not only be done by lectures, but more profoundly and according to successful didactic methods such as group work and case studies [37].…”

“…On another similar note, peer review - according to Bouter [12] the dominant kind of quality assessment - often affects or is affected by the relationship between colleagues. When assessing research proposals or manuscripts, objectivity is rather problematic.…”

“…Martinson et al [13] rightfully claim that current analyses only focus on researchers and their misconduct but fail to consider the broader research environment, involving its structures, which often trigger the researchers' misconduct through what Bouter [12] and Sandel [15] for instance call “perverse incentives.”…”

“…According to the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences [10], scientific integrity can be termed as “the voluntary commitment by researchers to comply with the basic rules of good scientific practice: Honesty, self-criticism and fairness are essential for morally correct behaviour.” However, researchers are pressured to achieve those stated requirements, not lastly by conducting so-called “scientific misconduct,” which is defined as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results” [11]. According to Bouter [[12], p. 150], many variances of misconduct or “questionable research practices” emerged in the grey zone between carrying out research according to the rules and three latter new “deadly sins” for scientific integrity (FFP). He states that the reasons for such behaviour can, in the best case, simply be unawareness of how it should be done or, in the worst case, that researchers know about the wrongdoing involved but proceed in those practices anyway for various reasons.…”