What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
In a large survey of academics in the Netherlands, PhD candidates and junior researchers had higher odds than other academic ranks of reporting at least one frequently engaged-in questionable research practice. The finding points to a problem involving both research practices and the conditions in which early-career staff work—not evidence that junior researchers are inherently less ethical or that career stage causes misconduct.
What the Netherlands survey found
Gopalakrishna and colleagues’ 2022 study in PLOS ONE analyzed responses from 6,813 academics at Dutch universities and university medical centers, across disciplines and academic ranks. More than half of respondents said they had frequently engaged in at least one questionable research practice (QRP) during the preceding three years, according to the authors’ summary. That is a self-reported result from this survey, not a prevalence estimate for researchers everywhere.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics | $90.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
100 Questions (and Answers) About Research Ethics | $37.59 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Research Ethics for Social Scientists | $12.24 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics | $18.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research: Readings and Commentary | $50.00 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
In comparisons by academic rank, PhD candidates and junior researchers had significantly higher odds of reporting any frequent QRP than other ranks. The survey’s Dutch category combined PhD candidates with junior researchers, including people doing research-related work under close supervision. Its boundaries may not match how other countries or institutions define early-career researchers.
The study also found that this group had the highest prevalence for eight of the eleven QRP items. But it had the highest rate of “not applicable” responses for ten of the eleven items, and applicability varies by role. Those results complicate raw comparisons: a response that a practice does not apply is not the same as reporting that it was done well or poorly.
#1 Best Overall
What counts as a questionable research practice?
QRPs are research behaviors that can undermine the reliability or transparency of a study. In the Netherlands survey, examples included not submitting or resubmitting valid negative results, leaving flaws and limitations insufficiently described, and keeping inadequate notes on the research process.
QRPs should not be collapsed into fabrication or falsification. The study measured those more serious forms of research misconduct separately. Its finding about frequent QRP reporting is not a finding that junior researchers fabricated or falsified results.
Rank #2
Five frequently reported practices
The following figures are the five highest-prevalence QRP items in the 2022 study. They represent respondents selecting scores of 5–7 on the study’s frequency scale; they are not estimates of proven misconduct.
| Reported practice | Respondents reporting it frequently |
|---|---|
| Not submitting or resubmitting valid negative studies for publication | 17.5% |
| Insufficiently including flaws and limitations | 17% |
| Insufficient supervision or mentoring of junior coworkers | 15% |
| Insufficient attention to equipment, skills, or expertise | 14.7% |
| Inadequate note-taking of the research process | 14.5% |
One of the most frequently reported items concerns insufficient supervision or mentoring of junior coworkers. That does not establish that poor supervision caused the higher QRP reporting among junior researchers. It does show why the issue cannot be framed only as a matter of individual choices.
Rank #3
- Used Book in Good Condition
How publication pressure fits in
In the Netherlands study, a one-standard-deviation increase on the publication-pressure scale was associated with 1.22 times the odds of reporting any frequent QRP (95% confidence interval: 1.14–1.30). Higher scores for scientific-norm subscription, peer norms, and organizational justice were associated with lower odds, with factors of 0.88, 0.91, and 0.91, respectively. These are adjusted statistical associations, not estimates of what would happen if an institution changed one factor.
A separate UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) landscape study, published in 2020, adds context about how researchers perceive the incentive environment. Two fifths of respondents said journal impact factors and other metrics had a negative impact on research integrity; one fifth described a positive impact, and another fifth described both positive and negative effects. These are participants’ perceptions reported for the UK sector, not direct measurements of research behavior or causal effects.
Rank #4
UKRI participants also described output-focused assessment, pressure to publish in high-impact journals, time constraints, and fixed-term contracts as pressures that can strain integrity. They connected these conditions with risks such as rushing work, neglecting negative results, overstating findings, or delaying openness. The report documents what participants said; it does not show that every researcher in those conditions behaves this way.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsWhy responsible practices need more than good intentions
A companion 2022 analysis of the Netherlands survey found differences in responsible research practices by discipline and rank. PhD candidates and junior researchers had lower overall responsible-practice scores and often marked practices as not applicable. The authors note that such responses are difficult to interpret across different kinds of work.
Best Value
- Used Book in Good Condition
Some individual practices also differed sharply: 99% of respondents reported avoiding plagiarism, while fewer than half reported preregistering a research protocol. Those are figures from the Netherlands survey, not universal rates. They illustrate that familiar safeguards and practices requiring different workflows or research designs do not have the same reported uptake.
A 2021 survey of 568 doctoral candidates from an approximate Max Planck Society population of 5,100 found generally positive views of open-science practices but relatively low implementation. Knowledge and attitudes predicted implementation in that study. Positive views, then, do not by themselves guarantee that researchers can put a practice into effect; feasibility, incentives, and field context matter too.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What institutions and research teams can do
The studies identify relevant pressure points, but they do not prove that any single intervention will reduce QRPs by a particular amount. Practical responses should address both everyday research support and the incentives shaping work.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Make supervision concrete and accountable
- Set clear expectations for feedback, record-keeping, reporting limitations, and handling negative results.
- Give junior researchers a reliable route to raise concerns or ask for help, including when the concern involves their direct supervisor.
- Check whether researchers have access to suitable equipment, skills, and expertise before treating a problem as an individual failure.
Reward rigor, not only visible output
- Use assessment practices that recognize careful methods, transparent reporting, and well-supported findings—not just publication quantity or journal metrics.
- Make room to report valid negative or inconclusive results without treating them as wasted work.
- Review workload and contract conditions that may make thorough work or timely openness difficult.
Make responsible practices usable
- Explain which practices apply to a project and why, rather than treating every checklist item as suitable for every discipline or study design.
- Provide practical guidance on documentation, preregistration where appropriate, and transparent methods and data where appropriate.
- Pair training with time, supervision, and workable procedures so that knowledge can translate into practice.
These steps follow the concerns identified in the surveys and sector report; the cited evidence supports them as relevant directions, not as individually proven fixes.
Quick Recap
How to interpret the evidence
- The strongest direct evidence on career rank comes from one cross-sectional, self-report survey in the Netherlands. It identifies an association, not a cause.
- QRP responses, fabrication and falsification, and responsible-practice scores are different outcomes. A result about one should not be presented as a result about the others.
- Career-stage definitions and the relevance of particular practices vary by country, role, and discipline. “Not applicable” responses make simple rank comparisons harder to interpret.
- The UKRI report captures UK participants’ accounts and perceptions, while the Max Planck survey concerns doctoral candidates in that society. Neither is a global estimate.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
