Breaches of research integrity have gained considerable attention due to high-profile scandals involving questionable research practices by reputable scientists. These practices include plagiarism, manipulation of authorship, biased presentation of findings and misleading reports of significance. To combat such practices, policymakers tend to rely on top-down measures, mandatory ethics training and stricter regulation, despite limited evidence of their effectiveness. In this study, we investigate the occurrence and underlying factors of questionable research practices (QRPs) through an original survey of 3,005 social and medical researchers at Swedish universities. By comparing the role of the organizational culture, researchers´ norms and counter norms, and individual motivation, the study reveals that the counter norm of Biasedness—the opposite of universalism and skepticism—is the overall most important factor. Thus, Biasedness was related to 40–60% of the prevalence of the questionable practices. The analysis also reveals the contradictory impact of other elements in the organizational environment. Internal competition was positively associated with QRP prevalence, while group-level ethics discussions consistently displayed a negative association with such practices. Furthermore, in the present study items covering ethics training and policies have only a marginal impact on the prevalence of these practices. The organizational climate and normative environment have a far greater influence. Based on these findings, it is suggested that academic leaders should prioritize the creation and maintenance of an open and unbiased research environment, foster a collaborative and collegial climate, and promote bottom-up ethics discussions within and between research groups.

由于知名科学家的可疑研究行为引发的备受瞩目的丑闻，违反研究诚信的行为引起了广泛关注。这些做法包括剽窃、操纵作者身份、有偏见地呈现研究结果以及误导性的重要性报告。为了打击此类做法，政策制定者往往依赖自上而下的措施、强制性道德培训和更严格的监管，尽管其有效性的证据有限。在这项研究中，我们通过对瑞典大学 3,005 名社会和医学研究人员的原始调查，调查了可疑研究实践 (QRP) 的发生和潜在因素。通过比较组织文化、研究人员的规范和反规范以及个人动机的作用，该研究揭示了偏见的反规范（与普遍主义和怀疑主义相反）是总体上最重要的因素。因此，偏见与 40-60% 的可疑做法相关。该分析还揭示了组织环境中其他要素的矛盾影响。内部竞争与 QRP 流行率呈正相关，而团体层面的道德讨论始终与此类做法呈负相关。此外，在本研究中，涵盖道德培训和政策的项目对这些做法的流行仅产生边际影响。组织氛围和规范环境的影响要大得多。基于这些发现，建议学术领导者应优先创建和维护开放和公正的研究环境，营造协作和学院氛围，并促进研究小组内部和之间自下而上的道德讨论。