325 research outputs found

    Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines

    No full text
    Calls have been made for improving transparency in conducting and reporting research, improving work climates, and preventing detrimental research practices. To assess attitudes and practices regarding these topics, we sent a survey to authors, reviewers, and editors. We received 3,659 (4.9%) responses out of 74,749 delivered emails. We found no significant differences between authors’, reviewers’, and editors’ attitudes towards transparency in conducting and reporting research, or towards their perceptions of work climates. Undeserved authorship was perceived by all groups as the most prevalent detrimental research practice, while fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and not citing prior relevant research, were seen as more prevalent by editors than authors or reviewers. Overall, 20% of respondents admitted sacrificing the quality of their publications for quantity, and 14% reported that funders interfered in their study design or reporting. While survey respondents came from 126 different countries, due to the survey’s overall low response rate our results might not necessarily be generalizable. Nevertheless, results indicate that greater involvement of all stakeholders is needed to align actual practices with current recommendations

    Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines.

    Get PDF
    Calls have been made for improving transparency in conducting and reporting research, improving work climates, and preventing detrimental research practices. To assess attitudes and practices regarding these topics, we sent a survey to authors, reviewers, and editors. We received 3,659 (4.9%) responses out of 74,749 delivered emails. We found no significant differences between authors', reviewers', and editors' attitudes towards transparency in conducting and reporting research, or towards their perceptions of work climates. Undeserved authorship was perceived by all groups as the most prevalent detrimental research practice, while fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and not citing prior relevant research, were seen as more prevalent by editors than authors or reviewers. Overall, 20% of respondents admitted sacrificing the quality of their publications for quantity, and 14% reported that funders interfered in their study design or reporting. While survey respondents came from 126 different countries, due to the survey's overall low response rate our results might not necessarily be generalizable. Nevertheless, results indicate that greater involvement of all stakeholders is needed to align actual practices with current recommendations

    Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors:A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands

    Get PDF
    Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. It included questions about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used the randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. 6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and of falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30). We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the “publish or perish” incentive system promotes research integrity

    Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in the Netherlands

    Get PDF
    Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. It included questions about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used the randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. 6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and of falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30). We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the “publish or perish” incentive system promotes research integrity

    Association between characteristics of nursing teams and patients' aggressive behavior in closed psychiatric wards

    No full text
    Purpose: Estimate the effect of nursing, shift, and patient characteristics on patients' aggression. Design and Methods: Follow-up study on a closed psychiatric ward was performed to estimate the effect of nursing team characteristics and patient characteristics on the incidence of aggression. Findings: The incidence of aggression (n = 802 in sample) was lower in teams with >75% male nurses. Teams scoring high on extraversion experienced more verbal aggression and teams scoring high on neuroticism experienced more physical aggression. Younger patients and/or involuntarily admitted patients were more frequently aggressive. Practice Implications: These findings could stimulate support for nurses to prevent aggression

    Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands

    No full text
    Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. It included questions about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used the randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. 6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and of falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30). We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the "publish or perish" incentive system promotes research integrity

    Impact of kinesiophobia on initiation of cardiac rehabilitation: a prospective cohort path analysis

    No full text
    Objectives To identify factors associated with kinesiophobia (fear of movement) after cardiac hospitalisation and to assess the impact of kinesiophobia on cardiac rehabilitation (CR) initiation. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Academic Medical Centre, Department of Cardiology. Participants We performed a prospective cohort study in cardiac patients recruited at hospital discharge. In total, 149 patients (78.5% male) with a median age of 65 years were included, of which 82 (59%) were referred for CR. Primary and secondary outcome measures We assessed kinesiophobia with the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK). For this study, the total score was used (range 13–52). We assessed baseline factors (demographics, cardiac disease history, questionnaire data on anxiety, biopsychosocial complexity and self-efficacy) associated with kinesiophobia using linear regression with backward elimination. For linear regression, the standardised beta (β) was reported. Prospectively, the impact of kinesiophobia on probability of CR initiation, in the first 3 months after hospital discharge (subsample referred for CR), was assessed with logistic regression. For logistic regression, the OR was reported. Results Moderate and severe levels of kinesiophobia were found in 22.8%. In the total sample, kinesiophobia was associated with cardiac anxiety (β=0.33, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.48), social complexity (β=0.23, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.39) and higher education (β=−0.18, 95% CI: −0.34 to −0.02). In those referred for CR, kinesiophobia was negatively associated with self-efficacy (β=−0.29, 95% CI: −0.47 to −0.12) and positively with cardiac anxiety (β=0.43, 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.62). Kinesiophobia decreased the probability of CR initiation (ORRange13–52 points=0.92, 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.99). Conclusion In patients hospitalised for cardiovascular disease, kinesiophobia is associated with cardiac anxiety, social complexity, educational level and self-efficacy. Kinesiophobia decreased the likelihood of CR initiation with 8% per point on the TSK
    corecore