Reflexive Behaviour: How publication pressure affects research quality in Astronomy. (arXiv:2109.09375v2 [physics.soc-ph] UPDATED)
<a href="http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Heuritsch_J/0/1/0/all/0/1">Julia Heuritsch</a>
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 10% 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.
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 10% 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.
http://arxiv.org/icons/sfx.gif
