Abstract
Calls have been made for improving transparency in conducting and reporting research, improving work climates, and preventing detrimental research practices. To assess attitudes and practices regarding these topics, we sent a survey to authors, reviewers, and editors. We received 3,659 (4.9%) responses out of 74,749 delivered emails. We found no significant differences between authors’, reviewers’, and editors’ attitudes towards transparency in conducting and reporting research, or towards their perceptions of work climates. Undeserved authorship was perceived by all groups as the most prevalent detrimental research practice, while fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and not citing prior relevant research, were seen as more prevalent by editors than authors or reviewers. Overall, 20% of respondents admitted sacrificing the quality of their publications for quantity, and 14% reported that funders interfered in their study design or reporting. While survey respondents came from 126 different countries, due to the survey’s overall low response rate our results might not necessarily be generalizable. Nevertheless, results indicate that greater involvement of all stakeholders is needed to align actual practices with current recommendations.
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Reference41 articles.
1. The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. The Hague, the Netherlands: 2018.
2. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign;D. Fanelli;PloS Med,2013
3. Why most published research findings are false;JPA Ioannidis;PLoS medicine,2005
4. The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013);MB Nuijten;Behav Res Methods,2016
5. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity;LM Bouter;Research Integrity and Peer Review,2016