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 Bibliographic and personal information were collected on all co-authors of papers that have been retracted or corrected in 2010-2011 (N=611 and N=2226 papers, respectively) and authors of control papers matched by journal and issue (N=1181 and N=4285 papers,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.

Editorial reflections about two cases of academic misconduct

Who should be held accountable? An analysis of academic misconduct cases in Chinese higher education and the challenges of the transformative process

Self-plagiarism in academic journal articles: from the perspectives of international editors-in-chief in editorial and COPE case

How Metrics-Based Academic Evaluation Could Systematically Induce Academic Misconduct: A Case Study

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

Promoting Research Integrity And Excellence In Chinese Hrm Studies

Causes and countermeasures of research-integrity problems in the new era: From the perspective of the culture of science

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

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

A Study of Paradigmatic Features in Scholastic Practice

Perceptions of Chinese Biomedical Researchers Towards Academic Misconduct: A Comparison Between 2015 and 2010

Research misconduct as a challenge for academic institutions and scientific journals

Sci-tech journal editor refactoring the leadership of academic integrity

Research Misconduct Investigations in China's Science Funding System

When Public Discourse Mirrors Academic Debate: Research Integrity in the Media

Assessment criteria for research misconduct: Taiwanese researchers' perceptions

Editorial bullying: an exploration of acts impacting publication ethics and related environment

Perceptions of research integrity and the Chinese situation: In-depth interviews with Chinese biomedical researchers in Europe

Principles in scientific journal editing

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

A bibliometric analysis of academic misconduct research in higher education: Current status and future research opportunities