Read the article

Read the article

Source

• We probably do, but the massive underreporting and lack of transparency in how institutions handle scientific misconduct cases make it difficult to fully understand the scale of the problem (Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, 1992; Vie, 2020).
• The most important feature of science is self-correction, and one valuable tool to do this is post-publication review¹ (Bordignon, 2020; Vazire & Holcombe, 2022), but are we ready with this yet?
• We need more evidence for the scale of the severity, not just hearsay.
  • What about cases of scientific misconduct involving abuse of power?
  • Do we have a system that guarantees the safety of whistleblowers?

• Rational Choice Theory: unethical decision making arises from cost-benefit calculation, where individuals are primarily motivated to maximize payoffs.
• Bad Apples Theory: unethical individuals behave unethically because they have flawed moral characters.
• General Strain Theory: unethical behaviors stem from maladaptive coping of extreme pressure/stress.
• Prospect Theory: unethical behaviors stem from the fear of loss (jobs, incentives, etc.) than potential gain.

• Organizational Justice Theory
  • Individuals who perceive themselves to be treated fairly by their institution behave more fairly themselves.
  • However, if their institutions are perceived as being unfair, people are more likely to engage in unethical acts that make up for this perceived unfairness (Crain, Martinson, & Thrush, 2013; Gopalakrishna et al., 2022).
• Ethos of Public Administration
  • Individuals are seen to be isolated entity, while instutions can unify individuals into a single, efficient and rational working unit.
  • Individuals are lazy, selfish, and disinterested in institution’s missions so institutional unity and discipline should always be maintained.
  • Extreme emphasis on effectiveness, efficiency, and quantitative outputs is at the expense of motivational crowding out (i.e., cobra effect, Zein, 2018)

• It is more likely both.
• Accumulated evidence says that unethical behaviors should be approached from multiple layer of explanatory levels (Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, 2010).
• This aligns with evidence stating that professional stressors + low probability of misbehavior detection is a perfect recipe for scientific misconduct (Holtfreter, Reisig, Pratt, & Mays, 2020).
• In an unhealthy research ecosystem, scientific misconduct is perceived as having a low (personal/professional) risk, but offering high returns.

• We need to shift the focus from prestige to credibility, which can be achieved by making all stages of the scientific process transparent .
• What does transparency mean here?
  • The audience receives sufficient information regarding how all stages of research are documented, that they can access these information without significant barriers, and that they are informed how to interpret and re-use research materials (Winker, Bloom, Onie, & Tumwine, 2023).
• Transparency makes cheating easier to detect and can reduce ambiguity about what behaviors count as misconduct (Haven, Gopalakrishna, Tijdink, van der Schot, & Bouter, 2022).
  • In the culture of transparency, scientific misconduct is harder to be justified as “everyone does it”.
  • Scientists can feel more confident about their claims, signaling that they are ready for public scrutiny.
• At the end, we hope that transparency is embraced as a shared professional identity.
  • In this sense, people avoid misconduct not because they fear of getting caught, but cheating is seen as incompatible with their professional identity.