Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

In Defense of the Questionable: Defining the Basis of Research Scientists’ Engagement in Questionable Research Practices

In Defense of the Questionable: Defining the Basis of Research Scientists’ Engagement in... National Institutes of Health principal investigators reported their perceptions of the ethical defensibility, prevalence in their field, and their personal willingness to engage in questionable research practices (QRPs). Using ethical defensibility ratings, an exploratory factor analysis yielded a two-factor solution: behaviors considered unambiguously ethically indefensible and behaviors whose ethical defensibility was more ambiguous. In addition, increasing perceptions that QRPs affect science predicted reduced acceptability of QRPs, whereas increasing beliefs that QRPs are normative or necessary for career success predicted increased acceptability of QRPs. Perceptions that QRPs are risky were unrelated to QRP acceptability but predicted reduced extramural funding (i.e., researchers’ lifetime extramural grants and total funding secured). These results identify risk (i.e., beliefs that QRPs are normative to stay competitive in one’s field) and protective factors (i.e., beliefs that QRPs have a significant negative impact on society) related to QRP endorsement that could inform educational interventions for training research scientists. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics SAGE

In Defense of the Questionable: Defining the Basis of Research Scientists’ Engagement in Questionable Research Practices

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/in-defense-of-the-questionable-defining-the-basis-of-research-A3ON9K5wIe
Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2017
ISSN
1556-2646
eISSN
1556-2654
DOI
10.1177/1556264617743834
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

National Institutes of Health principal investigators reported their perceptions of the ethical defensibility, prevalence in their field, and their personal willingness to engage in questionable research practices (QRPs). Using ethical defensibility ratings, an exploratory factor analysis yielded a two-factor solution: behaviors considered unambiguously ethically indefensible and behaviors whose ethical defensibility was more ambiguous. In addition, increasing perceptions that QRPs affect science predicted reduced acceptability of QRPs, whereas increasing beliefs that QRPs are normative or necessary for career success predicted increased acceptability of QRPs. Perceptions that QRPs are risky were unrelated to QRP acceptability but predicted reduced extramural funding (i.e., researchers’ lifetime extramural grants and total funding secured). These results identify risk (i.e., beliefs that QRPs are normative to stay competitive in one’s field) and protective factors (i.e., beliefs that QRPs have a significant negative impact on society) related to QRP endorsement that could inform educational interventions for training research scientists.

Journal

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research EthicsSAGE

Published: Feb 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.