How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A transcultural case study of Chinese and Flemish researchers

References

• Ana, J., T. Koehlmoos, R. Smith, and L. L. Yan. 2013. Research misconduct in low- and middle-income countries. PLoS Medicine 10 (3):e1001315. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, M. S. 2014. Global research integrity in relation to the United States’ research-integrity infrastructure. Accountability in Research 21 (1):1–8. doi:10.1080/08989621.2013.822262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouter, L. M. 2015. Commentary: Perverse incentives or rotten apples? Accountability in Research 22 (3):148–61. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.950253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouter, L. M., J. Tijdink, N. Axelsen, B. C. Martinson, and G. Ter Riet. 2016. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: Results from a survey among participants of four world conferences on research integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review 1 (17):1–8. doi:10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Broome, M. E., E. Pryor, B. Habermann, L. Pulley, and H. Kincaid. 2005. The scientific misconduct questionnaire–revised (SMQ-R): Validation and psychometric testing. Accountability in Research 12 (4):263–80. doi:10.1080/08989620500440253.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bureau of inspection auditing and supervision of National Natural Science Foundation of China. 2012. “Construction of scientific integrity starts from education: Review for the scientific integrity education forum” [in Chinese]. Bulletin of National Natural Science Foundation of China 1: 25–40.
   Google Scholar
• Central Office of the Communist Party of China, Office of State Council. 2018. “Opinions on further strengthening the construction of scientific research integrity” [in Chinese]. Accessed July 10, 2018. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2018-05/30/content_5294886.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Y., and Y. Fang. 2011. “We should objectively evaluate the current situation of research integrity in China” [in Chinese]. China Science Foundation 4:200–02.
   Google Scholar
• Cossette, P. 2004. Research integrity: An exploratory survey of administrative science faculties. Journal of Business Ethics 49:213. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000017967.83925.63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, M. S., M. Riske-Morris, and S. R. Diaz. 2007. Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: Evidence from ORI case files. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4):395–414. doi:10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrich, J., S. J. Howard, C. Mu, and S. Bokosmaty. 2016. A comparison of Chinese and Australian university students’ attitudes towards plagiarism. Studies in Higher Education 42 (2):231–46. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.927850.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D. 2009. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 4 (5):e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D., R. Costas, and V. Lariviere. 2015. Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS One 10 (6):e0127556. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godecharle, S., B. Nemery, and K. Dierickx. 2014. Heterogeneity in European research integrity guidance: Relying on values or norms? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 9 (3):79–90. doi:10.1177/1556264614540594.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godecharle, S., S. Fieuws, B. Nemery, and K. Dierickx. 2017. Scientists still behaving badly? A survey within industry and universities. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9957-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harzing, A. W. 2006. Response styles in cross-national survey research. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 6 (2):243–66. doi:10.1177/1470595806066332.
   Google Scholar
• Iverson, M., M. S. Frankel, and S. Siang. 2003. Scientific societies and research integrity: What are they doing and how well are they doing it? Science and Engineering Ethics 9:141. doi:10.1007/s11948-003-0002-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaatz, A., P. N. Vogelman, and M. Carnes. 2013. Are men more likely than women to commit scientific misconduct? Maybe, maybe not. MBio 4 (2):e00156–13. doi:10.1128/mBio.00156-13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, C. S., and A. Schrank. 2010. Incubating innovation or cultivating corruption? The developmental state and the life sciences in Asia. Social Forces 88 (3):1231–56. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J., J. B. Kim, and T. Isozaki. 2017. A comparative study on scientific misconduct between Korean and Japanese science gifted students. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 13 (7):3519–38. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2017.00742a.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lei, L., and Y. Zhang. 2017. Lack of improvement in scientific integrity: An analysis of WoS retractions by Chinese researchers (1997-2016). Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9962-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao, Q. J., Y. Y. Zhang, Y. C. Fan, M. H. Zheng, Y. Bai, G. D. Eslick, X. X. He, S. B. Zhang, H. H. X. Xia, and H. He. 2017. Perceptions of Chinese biomedical researchers towards academic misconduct: A comparison between 2015 and 2010. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9913-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macfarlane, B., J. Zhang, and A. Pun. 2012. Academic integrity: A review of the literature. Studies in Higher Education 39 (2):339–58. doi:10.1080/03075079.2012.709495.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinson, B. C., M. S. Anderson, and R. de Vries. 2005. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435:737–38. doi:10.1038/435737a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China (MOST). 2006. “Measures for handling scientific research misconduct in the implementation of national science and technology plan.” Accessed May 24, 2018. http://www.most.gov.cn/kjbgz/200611/t20061109_37931.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Mumford, M. D., S. T. Murphy, S. Connelly, J. H. Hill, A. L. Antes, R. P. Brown, and L. D. Devenport. 2007. Environmental influences on ethical decision making: Climate and environmental predictors of research integrity. Ethics and Behavior 17 (4):337–66. doi:10.1080/10508420701519510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okonta, P. R., and T. Rossouw. 2014. Misconduct in research a descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country. BMC Medical Ethics 15:25. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-15-25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pryor, E. R., B. Habermann, and M. E. Broome. 2007. Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: A national survey. Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (6):365–69. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.016394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B., T. Neal, A. Raymond, and G. E. Kissling. 2015. Research misconduct definitions adopted by U.S. research institutions. Accountability in Research 22 (1):14–21. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.891943.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steneck, N. H. 2006. Fostering integrity in research, definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):53–74. doi:10.1007/PL00022268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokes, G. S., and C. A. Searcy. 1999. Specification of scales in biodata form development: Rational vs. empirical and global vs. specific. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 7 (2):72–85. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talib, N. A., S. Othman, K. C. A. Hamid, A. Zainuddin, and Z. M. Nen. 2013. An alternative dimension towards integrity: A perception of university researchers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90:940–48. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.171.
   Google Scholar
• Thrush, C. R., J. V. Putten, C. G. Rapp, L. C. Pearson, K. S. Berry, and P. S. O’Sullivan. 2007. Content validation of the organizational climate for research integrity (OCRI) survey. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2 (4):35–52. doi:10.1525/JERHRE.2007.2.4.35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titus, S. L., J. A. Wells, and L. J. Rhoades. 2008. Repairing research integrity. Nature 453:980–82. doi:10.1038/453980a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, X., S. Sun, and J. Wang. 2016. “Academic misconducts: An appraisal based on university teachers’ cognition and its inspiration” [in Chinese]. Journal of National Academy of Education Administration 8:73–81.
   Google Scholar
• Zeng, W., and D. Resnik. 2010. Research integrity in China: Problems and prospects. Developing World Bioethics 10 (3):164–71. doi:10.1111/j.1471-8847.2009.00263.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, Y. 2008. “Analysis of PhD graduates’ attitude towards scientific misconduct and its causes” [in Chinese]. China Soft Science 5:45–51.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, Y., and D. Deng. 2012. “Chinese science and technology personnel’s view on academic misconduct” [in Chinese]. Science Research Management 33 (8):90–97.
   Google Scholar
• Zwart, H. 2017. Tales of research misconduct: A lacanian diagnostics of integrity challenges in science novels. Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy 36. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-65554-3
   Google Scholar