There is increasing evidence that scientific misconduct is more common than previously thought. Strong emphasis on scientific productivity may increase the sense of publication pressure. We administered a nationwide survey to Flemish biomedical scientists on whether they had engaged in scientific misconduct and whether they had experienced publication pressure. A total of 315 scientists participated in the survey; 15% of the respondents admitted they had fabricated, falsified, plagiarized, or manipulated data in the past 3 years. Fraud was more common among younger scientists working in a university hospital. Furthermore, 72% rated publication pressure as “too high.” Publication pressure was strongly and significantly associated with a composite scientific misconduct severity score.
AndersonM. S.RonningE. A.De VriesR.MartinsonB. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 437-461.
2.
BatesS. C.CoxJ. M. (2008). The impact of computer versus paper-pencil survey, and individual versus group administration, on self-reports of sensitive behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 903-916.
3.
BedeianA. G.Van FleetD. D.HymanH. H. (2009). Scientific achievement and editorial board membership. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 211-238.
4.
BirdS. J. (2006). Research ethics, research integrity and the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 411-412.
5.
Couzin-FrankelJ. (2013). Shaking up science. Science, 339, 386-389.
6.
DeangelisC. D. (2004). Professors not professing. Journal of the American Medical Association, 292, 1060-1061.
7.
EastwoodS.DerishP.LeashE.OrdwayS. (1996). Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2, 89-114.
8.
FanelliD. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4, Article e5738.
9.
FanelliD. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PLoS ONE, 5, Article e10271.
10.
FanelliD. (2013). Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature, 494, 149.
11.
GannonF. (2000). The impact of the impact factor. EMBO Rep, 1, 293.
12.
HesselsL. K. (2010). Science and the struggle for relevance. Utrecht University, Utrecht.
13.
JoinsonA. (1999). Social desirability, anonymity, and Internet-based questionnaires. Behavioral Research, Methods, Instruments & Computers, 31, 433-438.
14.
KalichmanM. W.FriedmanP. J. (1992). A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine, 67, 769-775.
15.
LaFolletteM. C. (2000). The evolution of the “scientific misconduct” issue: An historical overview. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 224, 211-215.
PabstS.BrandM.WolfO. T. (2013). Stress effects on framed decisions: There are differences for gains and losses. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, Article 142.
18.
SteneckN. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 53-74.
19.
StreinerD. L.NormanG. R. (2008). Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
TijdinkJ. K.SmuldersY. M.VergouwenA. C.de VetH. C.KnolD. L. (2014). The assessment of publication pressure in medical science; validity and reliability of a Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ). Quality of Life Research, 23, 2055-2062.
21.
TijdinkJ. K.VergouwenA. C.SmuldersY. M. (2013). Publication pressure and burn out among Dutch medical professors: A nationwide survey. PLoS ONE, 8, Article e73381.
22.
TourangeauR.SmithT. W. (1996). Asking sensitive questions the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 275-304.
23.
VinkersC. H.ZornJ. V.CornelisseS.KootS.HoutepenL. C.OlivierB.. . .JoëlsM. (2013). Time-dependent changes in altruistic punishment following stress. Psychoneuro-endocrinology, 38, 1467-1475.
24.
WellsJ. E. (1998). Making good use of numerical predictors: Alternatives to categories or straight lines. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 7(1), 66-71.
25.
WestC. P.TanA. D.HabermannT. M.SloanJ. A.ShanafeltT. D. (2009). Association of resident fatigue and distress with perceived medical errors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302, 1294-1300.
26.
WichertsJ. M. (2011). Psychology must learn a lesson from fraud case. Nature, 480, 7.
