Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers’ Perceptions in Spain

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.

Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study

“…The above claim is supported by looking at the content of the RI training program provided by institutions being part of the League of European Research Universities (LERU). The RI-related content provided by the LERU universities during their training sessions is focusing on providing knowledge related to RI and research misconduct without focusing on any aspect related to the researchers’ character [ 24 , 25 ]. Receiving RI-related knowledge seems to be no longer enough to promote a culture change within the scientific community and make scientists aware of their social responsibility [ 26 , 27 ].…”

“…Timing, duration, and frequency of existing RI training are seen as unsatisfactory. Although there is little literature reviewing RI training practices, when existing, academia provides RI education mainly once at the doctoral level [ 16 , 24 , 25 ]. This is clearly not enough; RI education should be implemented at any career level, on an ongoing basis, and should start as soon as possible to benefit the research climate [ 8 , 10 , 16 , 35 – 37 ].…”

“…Making RI training mandatory for students and doctoral students has already been recommended multiple times [ 8 , 10 , 36 ]. However, mandatory training sessions have been implemented only in few cases [ 24 ]. Imposing RI sessions as a contractual obligation would emphasise researchers' professional responsibilities [ 53 , 54 ].…”

A phenomenographic study of scientists’ beliefs about the causes of scientists’ research misconduct

“…Because of this, respondents "believe that about 21 per cent of the literature is tainted" (Bailey et al, 2001). The humanities haven't previously been shown to have a high prevalence of research misconduct, but in a 2021 survey of researchers in ethics and philosophy, "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" (Feenstra et al, 2021).…”

Reasons and implications of retracted articles in Brazil

“…In this sense, Vasconcelos (2012) points out that scientific integrity should be addressed as a grand challenge in contemporary science. Third, there are discussions about productivism and its "publish or perish" premise, which generate intense competition among scientists (Feenstra et al, 2021;Garfield, 1987;Jawaid, 2016;Lei;Zhang, 2018;Oliveira, 2015;Oransky, 2015), despite some dissent on this theme Costas;Larivière, 2015). And fourth, one encounters discussions associated with the post-retraction-citations problem, when retracted research is used to support and validate subsequent research (Santos-d' Amorim;Melo;Santos, 2021).…”