University teachers perspectives on publish or perish policies and research misconduct in a developing country
摘要
Scientific advancement is fundamentally anchored in trust and credibility, particularly in producing high-quality research that informs effective public policy. Violations of ethical research standards, referred to as scientific misconduct, threaten the integrity of the research process. This study explored the perspectives of university teachers in southeast Nigeria on research misconduct, the ‘publish or perish’ policy, and how to promote research integrity in universities.
MethodsThis institution-based cross-sectional study employed a descriptive exploratory approach. Participants were university teachers from four universities selected through a multi-stage sampling technique. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 24 participants for inclusion in the study. Data were collected using a pre-tested in-depth interview guide and were analyzed thematically with QDA Miner Lite v2.0.6.
ResultsNone of the participants condoned research misconduct in any form. The major challenges to research engagement by the university teachers included inadequate funding and time constraints. Participants also noted a lack of institutional support for payment of article processing charges for publication of manuscripts. None of the universities studied had a formal policy on research misconduct. While most participants perceived the policy of “publish or perish” as fair, they also identified it as a key driver of unethical research practices, along with a lack of financial support for researchers, and limited awareness of what constitutes research misconduct. Suggested measures to mitigate research misconduct included the provision of research grants, structured training in research ethics, academic mentoring, and a reassessment of the existing publication pressure, often referred to as the ‘publish or perish’ policy. Promoting research integrity was linked to the formulation of institutional policies on research misconduct and the implementation of awareness initiatives on the responsible conduct of research.
ConclusionsThe absence of research misconduct policies in the studied universities underscores the need for institutional reforms that promote research integrity. Establishing research misconduct policy in the universities, raising awareness about ethical research practices, and providing financial and mentorship support to university teachers are critical steps. Additionally, collaboration with universities in developed countries and equitable access to publication platforms, including waivers for article processing charges, are essential for supporting research in low-resource settings. There may be the need to relax the policy of publish or perish so as to create a healthier research environment while also ensuring that productivity is not undermined.