BackgroundThere is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields.MethodsWe used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental.ResultsIn total, 1080 researchers completed the survey (response rate: 15%) and 61 participated in the focus groups (3 three to 8 eight researchers per group). Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher.ConclusionWe found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted ‘insufficient supervision’. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.

中文翻译：

---

研究人员对研究不当行为的看法：阿姆斯特丹学术研究人员的混合方法研究

背景越来越多的证据表明研究不当行为很常见，尤其是次要形式。以往对研究不当行为的研究主要集中在生物医学和社会科学领域，自然科学和人文科学的证据很少。我们调查了阿姆斯特丹的学术研究人员认为在各自学科领域中有害的研究不当行为。方法我们使用了解释性顺序混合方法设计。首先，来自四个学科领域的调查参与者从 60 个列表中对研究不端行为的感知频率和影响进行了评分。然后，我们将这些组合成总体水平上最有害的研究不端行为的前五名，按学科领域分层。其次，在焦点小组访谈中，每个学术级别和学科领域的参与者都被要求反思与其学科领域最相关的研究不当行为。我们使用参与式排名方法，引导参与者就哪些研究不端行为最有害达成共识。 结果总共有 1080 名研究人员完成了调查（回复率：15%），61 人参加了焦点小组（每组 3 至 8 名研究人员） . 无论学科领域如何，监督不足在调查中始终名列前茅，焦点小组证实了这一点。焦点小组的重要主题是监督不足、草率的科学和草率的同行评审。生物医学研究人员和社会科学研究人员主要关注的是草率的科学和监督不足。自然科学和人文学科研究人员讨论了审稿人的草率审稿和盗窃思想，这是抄袭的一种形式。焦点小组参与者进一步提供了他们所面临的特定研究不当行为的例子，以及这些不当行为如何影响他们作为研究人员的工作。结论我们发现监督不足和各种形式的马虎科学在所有学科领域的总体有害影响上得分很高。自然科学和人文学科的研究人员也认为裙带关系对总体水平有重大影响。自然科学也考虑了具有重大影响的数据的制造。焦点小组访谈有助于了解研究人员如何解释“监督不足”。此外，焦点小组参与者在实践中增加了对草率科学的洞察力。自然科学和人文学科的研究人员将有关其学科领域的新研究不当行为添加到列表中，例如在发表前窃取想法。这提高了我们对社会和生物医学领域之外的研究不当行为的理解。