Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
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 large survey of academics in the Netherlands found that PhD candidates and junior researchers had higher odds than other academic ranks of reporting frequent engagement in at least one questionable research practice (QRP). That is a self-reported association, not proof that junior status causes misconduct or that early-career researchers are less ethical. The findings point to a problem that involves both research practices and the conditions—including supervision and publication pressure—in which people work.
What the Netherlands survey found
Gopalakrishna and colleagues’ 2022 analysis of the Netherlands National Survey on Research Integrity drew on responses from 6,813 academics across disciplines and ranks at Dutch universities and university medical centers. The authors reported that more than one in two respondents said they had frequently engaged in at least one QRP during the preceding three years. This is an estimate from that survey, not a prevalence rate for researchers everywhere.
In the study, “frequently” meant selecting a score of 5–7 on the survey’s Likert scale. These were the five most frequently reported QRP items:
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →| 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% |
Those percentages describe respondents’ answers about particular practices; they do not show that every person in a rank or institution engaged in them. The survey also treated fabrication and falsification as a separate, more serious category. Those forms of research misconduct should not be conflated with the QRPs listed above.
#1 Best Overall
Why the finding does not justify blaming early-career researchers
The Dutch survey used a specific category, “PhD candidate or junior researcher,” which included people doing research-related work under close supervision. Career-stage labels and job responsibilities differ between countries, so the category does not map neatly onto every research system.
The junior group had the highest prevalence for eight of the eleven QRP items across academic ranks. But it also had the highest share of “not applicable” responses for ten of the eleven items. Some practices may not fit a person’s role or discipline, making direct rank comparisons difficult. The authors likewise caution that applicability varies.
The finding about supervision matters alongside those limitations: insufficient supervision or mentoring of junior coworkers was itself among the five most frequently reported QRPs. The results therefore describe a concern that can involve individual decisions as well as the support and oversight available to researchers—not a moral failing attributable to junior staff alone.
How publication pressure and workplace norms relate to QRPs
In the Netherlands study’s adjusted analysis, a one-standard-deviation increase in publication-pressure score 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.
Rank #3
| Survey factor | Association with odds of any frequent QRP |
|---|---|
| Publication pressure, per one-standard-deviation increase in scale score | 1.22 times the odds (95% CI 1.14–1.30) |
| Scientific-norm subscription | Factor 0.88 |
| Peer norms | Factor 0.91 |
| Organizational justice | Factor 0.91 |
These are adjusted statistical associations, not estimates of what would happen if an institution changed one factor. The survey does not establish that pressure causes a particular practice or that a specific policy would reduce it by a stated amount.
A separate UK Research and Innovation landscape study, published in 2020, provides context about how researchers perceive incentives. Two fifths of its respondents said journal impact factors and other metrics negatively affected research integrity; one fifth described a positive impact, and another fifth described both positive and negative effects. The report also records participants’ concerns about rewards tied to publication quantity, high-impact journals, narrow assessment metrics, time pressure, and fixed-term contracts. These are UK respondents’ perceptions, not direct measures of behavior or causal evidence for all researchers.
Responsible practice is not the same as good intentions
A related 2022 analysis of the Dutch survey found differences in responsible research practices by field and career rank. PhD candidates and junior researchers had lower overall responsible-practice scores and often marked practices as not applicable. Publication pressure was associated with lower uptake, while mentoring and scientific-norm subscription were associated with higher uptake. As with the QRP analysis, the associations do not establish cause and effect, and not-applicable answers complicate comparisons across roles and disciplines.
The contrast between familiar and less routine practices is instructive: in that survey, 99% reported avoiding plagiarism, while fewer than 50% reported preregistering a research protocol. The figures describe responses in this Dutch academic sample; they should not be generalized to other populations or treated as a measure of every aspect of research quality.
Best Value
A 2021 survey within the Max Planck Society collected responses from 568 doctoral candidates from an approximate population of 5,100. Respondents generally viewed open-science practices positively, but reported relatively low implementation. Knowledge and attitudes predicted implementation in that survey. Positive views, in other words, do not by themselves show that a practice is feasible or routinely carried out.
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 conditions worth addressing, but do not prove that any single intervention will fix the problem. Practical responses should make rigorous work possible and professionally valued, rather than relying on individual researchers to resist incentives alone.
- Make supervision concrete. Set clear expectations for regular feedback, methods review, research records, and who is responsible for each stage of a project. Give junior staff a safe route to raise concerns or ask for help.
- Reward rigor, not just output. Assessment systems can recognize transparent methods, careful reporting of limitations, and sound work that produces negative or inconclusive findings—not only publication volume or journal prestige.
- Build shared norms into daily work. Teams should discuss authorship, data handling, analysis decisions, record-keeping, and how results will be reported before disputes or deadlines arise.
- Make responsible practices workable. Training and guidance should account for disciplinary differences and explain when practices such as preregistration are appropriate, how to carry them out, and what support is available.
- Check organizational fairness and workload. Clear processes, realistic timelines, and fair treatment are relevant to the organizational conditions associated with research practices in the Dutch survey.
How to read the evidence
- The strongest direct evidence about junior researchers comes from a cross-sectional, self-report survey in the Netherlands, published in 2022.
- Its rank comparisons are shaped by role, discipline, and “not applicable” responses; they are not a global league table.
- The UK report adds perceptions about incentives and employment conditions, while the Max Planck survey describes doctoral candidates in a separate institutional setting.
- None of these findings establishes that junior status causes QRPs or measures the effect of a particular prevention program.
The defensible conclusion is that junior researchers in the Dutch survey were more likely than other ranks to report frequent QRPs, within a research environment where publication pressure, mentoring, norms, and organizational conditions were also associated with practice. Treating that pattern as a reason to improve support and incentives is more consistent with the evidence than treating it as an indictment of early-career researchers.
Quick Recap
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.
