Abstract:Reflexive metrics is a branch of science studies which explores how the demand for accountability and performance measurement in science has shaped the research culture in recent decades. Hypercompetition and publication pressure are part of this neoliberal culture. How do scientists respond to these pressures? Studies on research integrity and organizational culture suggest that people who feel treated unfairly by their institution are more likely to engage in deviant behaviour, such as scientific misconduct. By building up on reflexive metrics, combined with studies on the influence of organisational culture on research integrity, this study reflects on the research behaviour of astronomers: 1) To what extent is research (mis-)behaviour reflexive, i.e. dependent on perceptions of publication pressure and distributive & organisational justice? 2) What impact does scientific misconduct have on research quality? In order to perform this reflection, we conducted a comprehensive survey of academic and non-academic astronomers worldwide and received 3,509 responses. We found that publication pressure explains 19% of the variance in occurrence of misconduct and between 7 and 13% of the variance of the perception of distributive & organisational justice as well as overcommitment to work. Our results on the perceived impact of scientific misconduct on research quality show that the epistemic harm of questionable research practices should not be underestimated. This suggests there is a need for a policy change. In particular, lesser attention to metrics (such as publication rate) in the allocation of grants, telescope time and institutional rewards would foster better scientific conduct and hence research quality.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is how publication pressure affects the quality of astronomical research. Specifically, the author explores this issue by studying the following aspects: 1. **Reflectivity of research behavior**: that is, to what extent research behavior depends on the perception of publication pressure and distributive and organizational justice. 2. **The impact of scientific misconduct on research quality**: especially how these misconducts affect the reliability and validity of research. To answer these questions, the author conducted a comprehensive survey of astronomers worldwide (including those in academia and non - academia) and received a total of 3,509 responses. The study found that publication pressure can explain 19% of the variation in the incidence of misconduct, and 7% - 13% of the variation in the perception of distributive and organizational justice and overwork commitment. In addition, the study also found that the negative impact of scientific misconduct on research quality cannot be underestimated, which indicates that policy changes are needed, especially reducing the focus on indicators (such as publication rate) when allocating funds, telescope usage time and institutional rewards, in order to promote better scientific behavior and research quality. ### Main conclusions - **The influence of publication pressure**: Publication pressure significantly affects the research behavior of astronomers, including the incidence of misconduct. - **The consequences of misconduct**: Scientific misconduct has a negative impact on research quality, especially in terms of the validity and reliability of research. - **Policy recommendations**: Reducing the dependence on quantitative indicators, especially in terms of resource allocation and career development, can promote higher - quality scientific research. ### Research methods - **Sample selection**: Through multi - stage cluster sampling techniques, astronomers worldwide were covered, including those in academia and non - academia. - **Survey tools**: Using the online survey tool LimeSurvey, a questionnaire was designed to measure independent variables (such as publication pressure, perception of organizational justice) and dependent variables (such as scientific misconduct, research quality). ### Theoretical framework - **Rational choice theory**: As the main theoretical framework, it is used to explain the behavior choices of individuals in specific situations. - **Organizational culture theory**: Especially the theory of organizational justice, which is used to explain how the organizational environment affects individual behavior. Through these methods and theoretical frameworks, the author aims to deeply understand the specific impact of publication pressure on the quality of astronomical research and put forward corresponding policy recommendations.

Reflexive Behaviour: How publication pressure affects research quality in Astronomy

Reflecting on Motivations: How Reasons to Publish affect Research Behaviour in Astronomy

Towards a Democratic University: A call for Reflexive Evaluation and a Participative Culture

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

Insights into the effects of indicators on knowledge production in Astronomy

Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure

Productivity Patterns, Collaboration and Scientific Careers of Authors with Retracted Publications in Clinical Medicine

Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen

Reflections on Scientific Misconduct in Management: Unfortunate Incidents or a Normative Crisis?

Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture

PubPeer: Scientific Assessment Without Metrics

Research integrity and academic medicine: the pressure to publish and research misconduct

Practicing responsible research assessment: Qualitative study of faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure assessments in the United States

Quantity over quality of publications: Are we using the right metrics to judge author's productivity and impact in biomedical research?

Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies

Research misconduct as a challenge for academic institutions and scientific journals

From impact metrics and open science to communicating research: Journalists' awareness of academic controversies

Behind the curtains of academic publishing: strategic responses of economists and business scholars

Requiem for Impact Factors and High Publication Charges

Knowledge Utilization and Open Science Policies: Noble aims that ensure quality research or Ordering discoveries like a pizza?

On the Willingness to Report and the Consequences of Reporting Research Misconduct: The Role of Power Relations