A new study suggests that much of what we think about misconduct — including the idea that it is linked to the unrelenting pressure on scientists to publish high-profile papers — is incorrect.
Some factors were associated with a higher rate of misconduct, of course — a lack of research integrity policy, and cash rewards for individual publication performance, for instance. Scientists just starting their careers, and those in environments where “mutual criticism is hampered,” were also more likely to commit misconduct.
More.
That makes sense. To argue the opposite is like saying that the need to make a profit causes car dealers to dump rolling coffins on their customers. Given the career-ending risks, there must be more to the story. Read the rest.
Note: “… those in environments where “mutual criticism is hampered,” were also more likely to commit misconduct.” We used to call that “old boys’ networks.” We are all too familiar with that problem around here.
Also:
In case you crave more science publishing news, a co-author of the paper, Vincent Larivière, has another article in PLOS ONE today, showing that “five publishing companies control more than half of academic publishing.”
Collect the set.
Follow UD News at Twitter!