Antecedentes

Chair: Daniel Vasgird CS28.1

The reasons behind non-ethical behaviour in academia Yves Fassin ([email protected])

Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Research Integrity and Peer Review2016,1(Suppl 1):CS28.1

Many professions have been under attack in the last decennia due to unethical practices, especially the business world. Despite the positive qualification and high ethical standards of science, some cases have also recently occurred in academia. What are the reasons for unethical be- haviour in academia, and do they differ with business?

We will try to make an inventory of the reasons for unethical behav- iour and built on Fassin’s analysis of the reasons for unethical behav- iour in business and entrepreneurship, presented in the Journal of Business Ethics (2005).

the pressures from stakeholders: shareholders, personnel, customers, suppliers, banks, government, media, environment the evolution of society - the individualism of people - norms the globalisation of the economy the short-term tactics the dominance of financial consider- ations short-termism of the stock market–anonymity of the individ- ual investor the 'juridisation' of business– Anglo-Saxon model the inefficiency of the juridical system for business: time and cost the dis- proportional importance of communication/media the prevalence of show versus content: bad examples the role models - television: media reality shows–politics - sport the reward and evaluation sys- tem of business and of managers: results_–stock price.

The academic world likes to present itself as completely different from other organizations, especially opposed to business; it has other objectives, organisation, rules and norms. Science pursues the ad- vancement of knowledge, for the progress of society and the benefit of mankind. This quest is disinterested and idealistic, with the well- known Merton’s characteristics of intellectual honesty, integrity, orga- nized scepticism, disinterestedness, impersonality (Merton, 1942, 125- 126, 318). Science is therefore considered as a noble activity. We will demonstrate that academics despite their perceived differ- ences, are confronted with similar problems. Academics just as“en- trepreneurs experience powerful competitive market pressures so keenly that these forces may alter their perspectives on ethics_”(Han- nafey, 2003).

We will analyse the motives of academics, and their psychology, and compare it to business people and entrepreneurs. We will compare the context of the university in a changing environment. Just as entrepreneurship, academia is about achievement and success. Both operate in a sphere of high international competition and the desire to beat the other party in a competitive environment. Facing such pressures, _“numerous rationalisations lead to unethical behaviour from usually intelligent, honest people who transgress the border be- tween right and wrong”(Gellerman, 1986). As in all human activity, the psychological side is a very important facet. Academics just as entrepreneurs want to succeed; the last thing they want to do is fail. Conflicts of interest between personal interests and stakeholder in- terests do also acoor in academia, just as abuse of power.

Our conclusion is that with the globalisation of the economy and innovation, the perceived uniqueness from the academic world has slightly diminished. Academic leaders should implement the ethical discourse in the entire organisation. This requires the right attitude of all individuals in the whole organisation, in concordance with the sense of honour of the academic community.

References

1. Yves Fassin, 2005. The Reasons Behind Non-Ethical Behaviour in Business and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 3: 265-279. 2. Saul W. Gellerman, 1986. Why‘good’managers make bad ethical choices,

Harvard Business Review.

3. Francis T. Hannafey, 2003. Entrepreneurship and Ethics : A Literature Review, Journal of Business Ethics 46: 99-110.

4. Merton, R., 1942-1974.The Sociology of Science, edited by Norman Storer. The University of Chicago Press.

CS28.2

The psychological profile of the dishonest scholar Cynthia Fekken ([email protected])

Queen's University, Kingston, Canada

Research Integrity and Peer Review2016,1(Suppl 1):CS28.2

Current psychological practice would support the programs that many institutions are implementing to teach research integrity to scholars. It is best practice to structure the context in which ethical behavior ought to occur by training scholars: to know the rules and principles; to recognize when these are relevant to their conduct; and to commit to behaving in a manner consistent with the rules and principles. Nonetheless, every in- stitution has scholars who are found guilty of scholarly misconduct and admit that they ignored what they knew to be right. Knowledge about psychological factors associated with research misconduct can improve our ability to maximize proactive efforts to foster research integrity. The dishonest scholar is characterized by a cluster of socially malevo- lent personality characteristics, as shown in the empirical literature in psychology. The dishonest scholar lacks conscientiousness, is pre- occupied with the self, disregards social norms, and is willing to ma- nipulate others. Changing such a “dark” psychological profile is notoriously difficult. Someone with a“dark”psychological profile has difficulty in recognizing and respecting another’s perspective; an in- ability to regulate his/her emotions; and a high tolerance for risk and punishment. These skill deficits hamper his/her ability to engage sys- tematically in the processes that underlie our research integrity train- ing programs. Although people in general respond better to rewards for meritorious behavior, the potentially dishonest scholar may in fact be deterred from research misconduct by severe sanctions. Research in our laboratory demonstrated that students who admitted to having engaged in relatively high levels of academic dishonesty described themselves as socially irresponsible, impulsive, callous and, not surprisingly, uncaring about others’opinions of them. When pre- sented with scenarios of another student tempted to engage in aca- demic dishonesty, the self- admitted cheaters indicated that, if they found themselves in that position, they would be less likely to be dis- honest if they knew a severe punishment would be certain to occur. Interestingly, scenarios that described the punishment as being swift to occur after the infraction did not affect their self- reported re- sponses to the scenarios.

Remarkably little research exists on whether punishment would deter potentially dishonest scholars from engaging in a lack of research in- tegrity. Yet universities and academic organizations almost all have policies recommending sanctions for scholars who have been found to be dishonest. Are such sanctions perceived as“severe”? Do argu- ably severe sanctions deter potentially dishonest scholars? Are uni- versity administrators prepared to enforce severe sanctions? Further empirical research and informed debate on the effectiveness of sanc- tions seems imperative.

CS28.3

Considering the implications of Dan Ariely’s keynote speech at the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity in Montréal

Jamal Adam, Melissa S. Anderson University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

Correspondence:Jamal Adam ([email protected]) - University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

Research Integrity and Peer Review2016,1(Suppl 1):CS28.3

The actions taken in response to academic misconduct result in devel- opment of policies, regulations, codes of conduct, the instruction in the responsible conduct of research, and oversight intended to ensure com- pliance. While these steps are necessary they might not be sufficient in ensuring responsible conduct of research. As such, strategies to protect research integrity which can be implemented in the specific contexts where the work of research takes place are needed. This emphasis on the research settings reflects on the fact that scientific enterprise is undertaken in an environment, as Grinell (2009) observes, characterized by ambiguous and uncertain contexts that is susceptible to academic misconduct.

The traditional mechanisms intended to reduce academic miscon- duct are founded on the classical economics view of the human being as a“rational agent”being who engages in exhaustive cost benefit analysis when deciding whether to engage in dishonest act or not (Mazar & Ariely, 2006). In his book, Predictably Ir- rational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, Dan Ariely explains that dishonesty decision making process is not always driven by logical calculation with respect to benefits and losses (2008).

In empirical studies, Ariely found that the high likelihood of be- ing caught did not deter subjects from refraining dishonesty (2008, p. 201). In the same studies, when the subjects where given an opportunity to destroy the incriminating evidence, the incidents of cheating did not decrease dramatically. This suggests that mechanisms that underpin acts of dishonest are beyond ra- tional cost benefit analysis. Among these mechanisms are internal reward systems that influence dishonest behavior (Mazar & Ariely, 2006).

The presentation“Considering the Implications of Daniel Ariely’s Key- note Speech Presented at the 3rd World Conference on Research In- tegrity in Montreal,” proposes that theory and findings from behavioral economics may shed light on research integrity and mis- conduct. Behavioral Economics incorporates insights from psych- ology into the principles of economics in order to explain human

“limitations” and the “complications” that follow from these limita- tions. (Mullainathan & Thaler, 2000). The presentation suggests ways in which strategies based on behavioral theory and research might be used by principal investigators to support research integrity among their research teams. Employing the concept of“choice archi- tecture”where the default choice is the right choice, the suggested techniques have the potential to create an environment where likeli- hood of incidences of academic misconduct is reduced (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009).

References

1. Ariely, D. (2008).Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions.New York, NY:HarperCollins.

2. Ariely, D. (2012). The (honest) truth about dishonesty: How we lie to everyone–especially ourselves. New York, NY:HarperCollins.

3. Grinnell, Frederick. (2009).Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic.New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 4. Mazar, N., and Ariely, D. (2006). Dishonesty in everyday life and its policy

implications.Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,25(1), 117-126. 5. Mullainathan, Sendhil, and Thaler, Richard H. (2000).Behavioral Economics.

Working paper 7948. Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved on September 9, 2014 from http:// www.nber.org/papers/w7948.

6. Thaler, Richard H., and Sunstein, Cass R. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness.London: Penguin Books.

CS28.4

Two large surveys on psychologists’views on peer review and replication

Jelte Wicherts, Brett Buttliere Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands

Correspondence:Jelte Wicherts ([email protected]) - Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands

Research question

Because of major cases of misconduct, high error rates in reporting of results, and failed replications of seminal studies, psychological sci- ence has witnessed a broad debate on improvements in methods of analyzing and reporting results, peer review, and replication. We wanted to collate opinions of research psychologists on these issues. Methods

We conducted two surveys of authors who had recently published in psychology, inviting 10,000 corresponding authors in each survey. We got useful responses from 2,304 and 1,931 respondents, in the two surveys, respectively. Questions in Survey 1 pertained to respon- dent’s trust in the literature, assessments of the peer review system in psychology and frequency of common problems in peer review, and respondents’support for policies to improve the peer review sys- tem. Questions in Survey 2 were concerned with the value of replica- tion, the interpretation and potential consequences of failures to replicate, the prevalence of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) in the field, and respondents’support for policies to improve replic- ability of published results. Respondents in both surveys were also asked to indicate their psychological subfield and the number of peer-reviewed publications.

Results

Results of Survey 1 showed that most responding psychologists trust the psychological literature, but also have some doubts about repro- ducibility of results in it. Although the majority of respondents were generally satisfied with the peer review system, most indicated that it could be improved. Most common problems concerned cases in which field leaders and close colleagues of editors/reviewers were fa- vored during peer review, and a lack of theoretical or statistical knowledge among reviewers. Solutions with most support were the use of double-blind review, regular screening for QRPs by journals, and the training and incentivizing of reviewers. Results of Survey 2 showed that most respondents agreed with the statement that the literature contains many non-replicable results, and that many psy- chologists used to employ QRPs. The majority of respondents valued direct replication, while acknowledging that failed replications could be due to moderators that are yet unknown or because materials may have different meanings across samples and contexts. A sub- stantial subset of respondents indicated that failed replications might lead to accusations of fraud. Solutions with the most support among respondents included mandatory disclosure of data exclusions, the publication of data and stimuli, and the establishment of system to arbitrage accusations of misconduct.

Implications

These two surveys shed interesting light on contested issues about peer review and replication in psychological science. Responses highlighted general trust in the literature and general satisfaction with the peer review system, but also the acknowledgment of prob- lems of nepotism and low quality reviews, as well as issues related to QRPs, and potentially low rates of replicability in the literature. Psy- chological researchers appear to favor double-blind review and would like to see peer review improved by training and incentivizing of peer reviewers. The need for direct replication of published find- ings is widely, albeit not unanimously, acknowledged.

29. Reporting and publication bias and how to