Abstract:The honesty and integrity of scientists is widely believed to be threatened by pressures to publish, unsupportive research environments, and other structural, sociological and psychological factors. Belief in the importance of these factors has inspired major policy initiatives, but evidence to support them is either non-existent or derived from self-reports and other sources that have known limitations. We used a retrospective study design to verify whether risk factors for scientific misconduct could predict the occurrence of retractions, which are usually the consequence of research misconduct, or corrections, which are honest rectifications of minor mistakes. Bibliographic and personal information were collected on all co-authors of papers that have been retracted or corrected in 2010-2011 (N=611 and N=2226 papers, respectively) and authors of control papers matched by journal and issue (N=1181 and N=4285 papers, respectively), and were analysed with conditional logistic regression. Results, which avoided several limitations of past studies and are robust to different sampling strategies, support the notion that scientific misconduct is more likely in countries that lack research integrity policies, in countries where individual publication performance is rewarded with cash, in cultures and situations were mutual criticism is hampered, and in the earliest phases of a researcher's career. The hypothesis that males might be prone to scientific misconduct was not supported, and the widespread belief that pressures to publish are a major driver of misconduct was largely contradicted: high-impact and productive researchers, and those working in countries in which pressures to publish are believed to be higher, are less-likely to produce retracted papers, and more likely to correct them. Efforts to reduce and prevent misconduct, therefore, might be most effective if focused on promoting research integrity policies, improving mentoring and training, and encouraging transparent communication amongst researchers.

Scientific disclosure and corporate misconduct

Corporate Philanthropy and Corporate Misconduct: Evidence from China

Social Trust and Corporate Misconduct: Evidence from China

The Spillover Effects of Innovation Content Disclosure in MD&A

Financial Shared Service Centers and Corporate Misconduct: Evidence from China

Transparency Pays: How Carbon Emission Disclosure Lowers Cost of Capital

Corporate Science, Innovation and Firm Value

Scientific misconduct responsibility attribution: An empirical study on byline position and team identity in Chinese medical papers

The relationship between corporate environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical study in China

Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity

Corporate ESG performance and manager misconduct: Evidence from China

Cover-up or true? does CSR disclosure really contribute to corporate environmental performance?

RETRACTED: The influencing factors and governance strategies of corporate misconduct from the perspective of collusion

Corporate Social Responsibility Information Disclosure and Innovation Sustainability: Evidence from China

Crisis spillover of corporate environmental misconducts: The roles of perceived similarity, familiarity, and corporate environmental responsibility in determining the impact on oppositional behavioral intention

Environmental information disclosure and corporate financial performance: Evidence from China

Going out by doing good: The effect of mandatory CSR disclosure on outward FDI of Chinese firms

Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure, Media Reports, and Enterprise Innovation: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies

Modeling Studies on Scientific Misconduct

Research on the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance of Chemical Companies

Mandatory Disclosure of Corporate Social Responsibility and the Quality of Earnings Management