"More than half of Dutch scientists regularly engage in questionable research practices, such as hiding flaws in their research design or selectively citing literature, according to a new study. And one in 12 admitted to committing a more serious form of research misconduct within the past 3 years: the fabrication or falsification of research results"
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/landmark-research-integrity-survey-finds-questionable-practices-are-surprisingly-common
If researchers are often rewarded for producing impressive results (Edwards & Roy dixit), and as Professor Diamandis noted in a 2017 paper published in Clinical Biochemistry, there are no saints in competitive science. Thus, the recent Dutch outcomes should not come as a huge surprise.
In 2014, Full Professor John Ioannidis highlighted that science has an ineffective reward system that needs reform. Despite this call for change, the system remains the same. Belluz et al. (2016) suggested that science should celebrate and reward failure to encourage scientists to design robust tests rather than convenient ones. http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process
A more effective solution could involve ranking misconduct acts to address the rise of the most severe types, similar to how penal codes rank crimes and assign higher penalties to the worst offenses. Everyone knows that infractions are less serious than misdemeanors, and misdemeanors are less serious than felonies, which can result in life imprisonment or even the death penalty. However, in academia, there is no clear ranking of research misconduct.
For instance, in some countries, honorary authorship is not considered misconduct, whereas a recent Swiss integrity code proposes punishing excessive self-citations, which may divert focus from the real offenders. If there is only one global science community, why can't we have a single, universal research misconduct code?
