Abstract:Introduction: The focus on quantitative indicators-number of publications and grants, journal impact factors, Hirsch-index-has become pervasive in research management, funding systems, and research and publication practices (SES). Accountability through performance measurement has become the gold standard to increase productivity and (cost-) efficiency in academia. Scientific careers are strongly shaped by the push to produce more in a veritable 'publish or perish' culture. To this end, we investigated the perspectives of biomedical researchers on responsible assessment criteria that foster responsible conduct of research. Methods: We performed a qualitative focus group study among 3 University medical centers in the Netherlands. In these centers, we performed 2 randomly selected groups of early career researchers (PhD and postdoc level & senior researchers (associate and full professors) from these 3 institutions and explored how relational responsibilities relate to responsible conduct of research and inquired how potential (formal) assessment criteria could correspond with these responsibilities. Results: In this study we highlighted what is considered responsible research among junior and senior researchers in the Netherlands and how this can be assessed in formal assessment criteria. The participants reflected on responsible research and highlighted several academic responsibilities (such as supervision, collaboration and teaching) that are often overlooked and that are considered a crucial prerequisite for responsible research. As these responsibilities pertain to intercollegiate relations, we henceforth refer to them as relational. After our systematic analysis of these relational responsibilities, participants suggested some ideas to improve current assessment criteria. We focused on how these duties can be reflected in multidimensional, concrete and sustainable assessment criteria. Focus group participants emphasized the importance of assessing team science (both individual as collective), suggested the use of a narrative in researcher assessment and valued the use of 360 degrees assessment of researchers. Participants believed that these alternative assessments, centered on relational responsibilities, could help in fostering responsible research practices. However, participants stressed that unclarity about the new assessment criteria would only cause more publication stress and insecurity about evaluation of their performance. Conclusion: Our study suggests that relational responsibilities should ideally play a more prominent role in future assessment criteria as they correspond with and aspire the practice of responsible research. Our participants gave several suggestions how to make these skills quantifiable and assessable in future assessment criteria. However, the development of these criteria is still in its infancy, implementation can cause uncertainties among those assessed and consequently, future research should focus on how to make these criteria more tangible, concrete and applicable in daily practice to make them applicable to measure and assess responsible research practices in institutions. Trial registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/9tjda/.

How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers

Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists

How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists

Relational responsibilities: Researchers perspective on current and progressive assessment criteria: A focus group study

Competition in Science: Links Between Publication Pressure, Grant Pressure and the Academic Job Market

Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure

Research culture in biomedicine: what we learned, and what we would like to do about it

Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies

Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities

Publishing Biomedical Research: a rapidly evolving ecosystem

Five problems plaguing publishing in the life sciences-and one common cause

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

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

Current views and practice of faculty members and consultants regarding 'Publications in India': A cross-sectional study

Reflexive Behaviour: How publication pressure affects research quality in Astronomy

Animal researchers' views on the publication of negative results and subsequent policy adoptions

Societal impact of university research in the written press: media attention in the context of SIUR and the open science agenda among social scientists in Flanders, Belgium

How researchers perceive research misconduct in biomedicine and how they would prevent it: A qualitative study in a small scientific community

Contemporary global perspectives of medical students on research during undergraduate medical education: a systematic literature review

Drivers and Obstacles of Open Access Publishing. A Qualitative Investigation of Individual and Institutional Factors

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