25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Publication Pressure and Scientific Misconduct in Medical Scientists

      1 , 2 , 3 , 1
      Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
      SAGE Publications

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Association of resident fatigue and distress with perceived medical errors.

          Fatigue and distress have been separately shown to be associated with medical errors. The contribution of each factor when assessed simultaneously is unknown. To determine the association of fatigue and distress with self-perceived major medical errors among resident physicians using validated metrics. Prospective longitudinal cohort study of categorical and preliminary internal medicine residents at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Data were provided by 380 of 430 eligible residents (88.3%). Participants began training from 2003 to 2008 and completed surveys quarterly through February 2009. Surveys included self-assessment of medical errors, linear analog self-assessment of overall quality of life (QOL) and fatigue, the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the PRIME-MD depression screening instrument, and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Frequency of self-perceived, self-defined major medical errors was recorded. Associations of fatigue, QOL, burnout, and symptoms of depression with a subsequently reported major medical error were determined using generalized estimating equations for repeated measures. The mean response rate to individual surveys was 67.5%. Of the 356 participants providing error data (93.7%), 139 (39%) reported making at least 1 major medical error during the study period. In univariate analyses, there was an association of subsequent self-reported error with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score (odds ratio [OR], 1.10 per unit increase; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.16; P = .002) and fatigue score (OR, 1.14 per unit increase; 95% CI, 1.08-1.21; P < .001). Subsequent error was also associated with burnout (ORs per 1-unit change: depersonalization OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12; P < .001; emotional exhaustion OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.08; P < .001; lower personal accomplishment OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.97; P < .001), a positive depression screen (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.76-3.72; P < .001), and overall QOL (OR, 0.84 per unit increase; 95% CI, 0.79-0.91; P < .001). Fatigue and distress variables remained statistically significant when modeled together with little change in the point estimates of effect. Sleepiness and distress, when modeled together, showed little change in point estimates of effect, but sleepiness no longer had a statistically significant association with errors when adjusted for burnout or depression. Among internal medicine residents, higher levels of fatigue and distress are independently associated with self-perceived medical errors.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scientists behaving badly.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data

              The growing competition and “publish or perish” culture in academia might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research, because it forces scientists to produce “publishable” results at all costs. Papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report “negative” results (results that fail to support the tested hypothesis). Therefore, if publication pressures increase scientific bias, the frequency of “positive” results in the literature should be higher in the more competitive and “productive” academic environments. This study verified this hypothesis by measuring the frequency of positive results in a large random sample of papers with a corresponding author based in the US. Across all disciplines, papers were more likely to support a tested hypothesis if their corresponding authors were working in states that, according to NSF data, produced more academic papers per capita. The size of this effect increased when controlling for state's per capita R&D expenditure and for study characteristics that previous research showed to correlate with the frequency of positive results, including discipline and methodology. Although the confounding effect of institutions' prestige could not be excluded (researchers in the more productive universities could be the most clever and successful in their experiments), these results support the hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase not only scientists' productivity but also their bias. The same phenomenon might be observed in other countries where academic competition and pressures to publish are high.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
                Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
                SAGE Publications
                1556-2646
                1556-2654
                October 02 2014
                December 2014
                October 02 2014
                December 2014
                : 9
                : 5
                : 64-71
                Affiliations
                [1 ]VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Tergooi Hospitals, Hilversum, The Netherlands
                [3 ]EOS Magazine, Antwerp, Belgium
                Article
                10.1177/1556264614552421
                25747691
                5a370930-ddad-4b8a-88dc-2a3b917e75de
                © 2014

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article