Explanations of Research Misconduct, and How They Hang Together

Abstract

In this paper, we explore different possible explanations for research misconduct (especially falsification and fabrication), and investigate whether they are compatible. We suggest that to explain research misconduct, we should pay attention to three factors: (1) the beliefs and desires of the misconductor, (2) contextual affordances, (3) and unconscious biases or influences. We draw on the three different narratives (individual, institutional, system of science) of research misconduct as proposed by Sovacool to review six different explanations. Four theories start from the individual: Rational Choice theory, Bad Apple theory, General Strain Theory and Prospect Theory. Organizational Justice Theory focuses on institutional factors, while New Public Management targets the system of science. For each theory, we illustrate the kinds of facts that must be known in order for explanations based on them to have minimal plausibility. We suggest that none can constitute a full explanation. Finally, we explore how the different possible explanations interrelate. We find that they are compatible, with the exception of explanations based on Rational Choice Theory and Prospect Theory respectively, which are incompatible with one another. For illustrative purposes we examine the case of Diederik Stapel.

Research integrity guidelines in the academic environment: The context of Brazilian institutions with retracted publications in health and life sciences

“…There are few studies evaluating retraction notices and research misconduct institutions in Brazil (Pádua and Guilhem, 2015 ; Stavale et al, 2019 ; Santos-D'amorim et al, 2021 ). Understanding the form of research misconduct may share light to the weaknesses and strengths of individual, organizational, and structural factors toward the implementation of a research integrity culture (Haven and van Woudenberg, 2021 ; Santos-D'amorim et al, 2021 ). Research integrity policies would be more effective if they were supported by scientific evidence as they would provide a better understanding of the problem (Haven and van Woudenberg, 2021 ).…”

“…Universities play an important role as a supervisor and leader in advocating for a research integrity culture (Vasconcelos et al, 2015 ; Haven and van Woudenberg, 2021 ; Lerouge and Hol, 2022 ). Institutional recognition of good practices and the sanction of research misconduct favor research integrity practices.…”

“…University policies for the career progression system may also reinforce publication pressure and competitions (Haven and van Woudenberg, 2021 ; Santos-D'amorim et al, 2021 ). These behaviors are prejudicial to research integrity principles (Stavale et al, 2019 ).…”

“…Several aspects may contribute or inhibit research misconduct practices (Haven and van Woudenberg, 2021 ). It is known that it involves a complex and dynamic network of aspects that engage individual to structural action (Davis et al, 2007 ; Figure 1 ).…”

Construction and Validation of the Research Misconduct Scale for Social Science University Students

“…However, many other practices can fall into the category of research misconduct because they deviate from ethical standards in research ( Eshet et al, 2021 ). These include misrepresentation of data in publications, selectively reporting results, characterizing results with low power as unfavorable, improper use of funds, violations of safety protocols, gift authorship, conflicts of interest, and duplicate publications ( Federman et al, 2003 ; Maggio et al, 2019 ; Haven and van Woudenberg, 2021 ). Although the aspects that characterize misconduct research are well known, the factors that influence misconduct in research have been less intensively scrutinized.…”