Recommended Free Tools
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
A 2018 anonymous survey of biomedical researchers in Belgium found that many respondents admitted at least one of 22 listed research misconduct or questionable practices in the previous three years. The results describe what respondents said they had done or witnessed—not proven fraud cases or the prevalence of misconduct among researchers everywhere.
What did the survey find?
Among usable responses, 71% of university researchers and 61% of industry researchers said they had committed at least one listed act during the preceding three years. On a separate question, 93% of university respondents and 84% of industry respondents said they had observed misconduct among colleagues. These are respondent-reported percentages, not adjudicated findings.
| # | 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 |
The figures come from Emma Stoye’s February 2, 2018 report in Chemistry World and the study by Simon Godecharle and colleagues, “Scientists Still Behaving Badly? A Survey Within Industry and Universities”. Godecharle described the finding as showing that misconduct occurs “to a substantial degree” among biomedical researchers from both settings, emphasizing that the survey was based on anonymous self-report.
What counted as misconduct?
The questionnaire covered 22 behaviors, extending beyond fabrication, falsification and plagiarism to include questionable research practices in daily work. Examples cited in the report include cutting corners, ignoring safety or regulatory requirements, and changing results in response to pressure from funders.
#1 Best Overall
Godecharle said the team wanted a broader scope because research misconduct and questionable practices go beyond the traditional trio of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. The survey adapted an earlier US survey in light of European guidance and the researchers’ prior qualitative work.
How were the university and industry groups compared?
The survey invited 1,766 university researchers who had received biomedical research grants or scholarships from Belgian national academic funders between 2010 and 2014. It also included an estimated 255 researchers at large biomedical companies or spin-offs in Belgium. The online questionnaire asked about conduct committed or observed in the previous three years.
Rank #2
| Measure | University respondents | Industry respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Usable responses | 617 | 100 |
| Admitted at least one listed act | 71% | 61% |
| Observed misconduct among colleagues | 93% | 84% |
| Response rate among invitees | 43% | 48% |
Response counts and rates are reported in the study record; the percentages for admission and observation were reported by Chemistry World. The comparison concerns these respondent groups and the same broad questionnaire, not a direct measurement of each sector’s underlying misconduct rate.
Does industry have less research misconduct than academia?
The respondents in industry generally reported misconduct less often, but that does not establish that industry researchers actually engage in less misconduct. Anonymous self-report can encourage candor, yet people may differ in what they recognize as misconduct or how willing they are to disclose it. Nonresponse also matters: more than half of invitees in each group did not provide a usable response.
Rank #3
- Used Book in Good Condition
Differences for individual behaviors were described as limited, with few statistically significant differences reported across the listed conduct. Plagiarism was identified as an exception: industry respondents admitted and observed it more often than university respondents. The available reporting does not establish why the groups differed, nor does it provide grounds for a causal explanation.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What can—and cannot—be concluded?
The findings offer a window into reported research practices among a specific group of biomedical researchers in Belgium. They do not show that 71% of all academics or 61% of all industry scientists commit misconduct. The percentages refer only to usable respondents acknowledging at least one behavior on this survey’s broad 22-item list.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- Used Book in Good Condition
Rank #4
- Geography and field: The study concerned biomedical researchers in Belgium, including university researchers linked to selected national academic funders and researchers at large biomedical companies or spin-offs.
- Type of evidence: Admissions and observations were anonymous respondent reports, not independently verified case counts.
- Scope: The results should not be generalized without qualification to other countries, scientific disciplines, career groups or smaller organizations.
- Interpretation: A difference in reported behavior does not by itself prove a difference in actual behavior; the study abstract does not establish the reason for the sector gap.
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.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →
