Scholarlink

<p>Empirical research on scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) has increasingly adopted a systemic perspective, emphasising research climate, supervision, and organisational conditions. This PRISMA-guided scoping review synthesises 229 survey- and interview-based studies published between 2016 and 2025 to examine how misconduct and QRPs are empirically operationalised in perception- and climate-oriented research. Rather than aiming to estimate prevalence, the review focuses on the concepts, instruments, and methodological choices through which integrity problems are rendered measurable. The findings show that aggregate harm is rarely defined explicitly and is instead inferred from perceived prevalence and severity of practices. Severe violations dominate measurement frameworks, while routine, relational, and structurally induced practices remain weakly captured. Methodological patterns further shape what becomes empirically visible, highlighting the need for approaches that better integrate individual perceptions with institutional conditions when assessing integrity risks.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Scientific misconduct, questionable research practices, and research climate: empirical approaches to integrity problems

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月22日

查看全文
  • Serhii Nazarovets

摘要

Empirical research on scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) has increasingly adopted a systemic perspective, emphasising research climate, supervision, and organisational conditions. This PRISMA-guided scoping review synthesises 229 survey- and interview-based studies published between 2016 and 2025 to examine how misconduct and QRPs are empirically operationalised in perception- and climate-oriented research. Rather than aiming to estimate prevalence, the review focuses on the concepts, instruments, and methodological choices through which integrity problems are rendered measurable. The findings show that aggregate harm is rarely defined explicitly and is instead inferred from perceived prevalence and severity of practices. Severe violations dominate measurement frameworks, while routine, relational, and structurally induced practices remain weakly captured. Methodological patterns further shape what becomes empirically visible, highlighting the need for approaches that better integrate individual perceptions with institutional conditions when assessing integrity risks.