Factors Associated with Scientific Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education
Abstract
IntroductionEngaging in scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) is a noted problem across fields, including health professions education (HPE). To mitigate these practices, other disciplines have enacted strategies based on researcher characteristics and practice factors. Thus, to inform HPE, this article seeks to determine which researcher characteristics and practice factors, if any, might explain the frequency of irresponsible research practices.\n\nMethodIn 2017, a cross-sectional survey of HPE researchers was conducted. The survey included 66 items derived from two published QRP surveys and a publication pressure scale adapted from the literature. The study outcome was the self-reported misconduct frequency score, which is a weighted mean score for each respondent on all misconduct and QRP items. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression analysis.\n\nResults and DiscussionIn total, 590 researchers took the survey. Results from the regression analysis indicated that researcher age had a negative association with the misconduct frequency score (b = -.01, t = -2.91, p<.05) suggesting that older researchers tended to have lower misconduct frequency scores. Publication pressure (b = .20, t = 7.82, p<.001) and number of publications (b = .001, t = 3.27, p<.01) had positive associations with the misconduct frequency score. The greater the publication pressure or the more publications a researcher reported, the higher the misconduct frequency score. Overall, the explanatory variables accounted for 21% of the variance in the misconduct frequency score, and publication pressure was the strongest predictor. These findings provide an evidence base from which HPE might tailor strategies to address scientific misconduct and QRPs.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Ethical Shades of Gray: Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education
A. R. Artino, E. W. Driessen, L. A. Maggio·bioRxiv·Apr 12, 2018
- A decade of empirical research on research integrity: what have we (not) looked at?
N. Aubert Bonn, W. Pinxten·bioRxiv·Mar 14, 2019
- A Pilot Survey of Authors' Experiences with Poor Peer Review Practices
K. B. McCloskey, J. F. Merz·bioRxiv·Dec 20, 2022
- A qualitative study exploring researchers’ perspectives on authorship decision-making
L. A. Maggio, A. R. Artino, … B. C. O'Brien·bioRxiv·Apr 23, 2019
- Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (Part 2) -- A multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science
N. Aubert Bonn, W. Pinxten·Research Integrity and Peer ReviewPeer-reviewed·Jan 14, 2021
- Survey of Australian STEMM Early Career Researchers: job insecurity and questionable research practices are major structural concerns
K. Christian, C. Johnstone, … M. R. Doran·bioRxiv·Feb 19, 2020