Issues
Several issues raised are discussed as follows.
The pressure to publish Publication is the goal of many researchers as this leads to career elevation and recognition. Therefore, Many scientists, for fear of being left behind, engage in cheating and other fraudulent behaviours to have more publications (Honeycutt & Jussim, 2022).
Competition –the world today is very competitive. Researchers also compete for jobs, promotions, attention and career enhancement. There are many researchers, but there are very few positions. Some, therefore, come up with pathways to make them rich by having many publications.
Lack of transparency- Since every research scientist wants to build their career, and the ideals of transparency are not part of the reward system, no one is willing to sacrifice their own career just to be transparent.
Financial benefits researchers are under pressure to create more publications due to the grants and donations tied to those findings.
Lack of accountability and monitoring- this paves the way for more cheating in order to get recognized.
Publication bias- the system is in such a way that it underscores positive results. A scientist, therefore, finds a way to fabricate the findings to fit the demand.
Crisis of replication- the fact that it is not allowed to reproduce someone’s work raises suspicions about the research’s credibility and validity.
Analysis
The following presents theories that provide an analysis of the issues raised by the podcast,
The Principle-Agent theory involves one person, the principal, who tasks the agent to negotiate on their behalf (Bernhold & Wiesweg, 2021). In this case, the financial institutions and organizations task the scientific researcher to come up with research with specific findings. The researcher, therefore, ensures that he/she satisfies the requirement of his/her principal, even if it means cheating and coming up with incorrect findings. The researcher is willing to go against the ideals of research because he/she does not want to lose money from the research.
Publication bias is a common type of bias in research whereby a scientist makes findings based on their judgement rather than on the data and facts presented (Honeycutt & Jussim, 2022). This may arise due to the stakeholders’ preferences, causing the researcher to create fake figures in order to satisfy the board and stakeholders with the findings.
Moral guidelines- In academia, researchers are expected to follow the guidelines that the publication ethics committee defines. However, many researchers must adhere to these guidelines, leading to system weaknesses. Action needs to be taken to strengthen the adherence to these guidelines by creating a board that will provide oversight, crosschecking the findings of each research and determining if it corresponds to the data and facts collected.
Social exchange theory is based on the idea that social behaviour results from an exchange process (Ahmad et al., 2023). Here, individuals outweigh the benefits and losses they will gain from something, so they choose one with more benefits. Many researchers who practice fraudulent activities are winning. Therefore, the few who do not cheat only have small wins. It generates competition where those who do not cheat feel like they are being left behind. It creates a system where every researcher engages in these fraudulent activities to achieve what others are achieving.
Organizational Imperatives-researchers often work hand in hand with institutions or financial organizations that task them to undertake a research project that comes up with specific outcomes. These outcomes are usually premeditated because of the benefits that these institutions stand to gain. Since they want to impress their employer, research scientists participate in these researches but do not conduct conclusive research, leaving out vital information to achieve their predefined outcomes. It promotes fraudulent activities in academia.
My Position
The following outlines my position regarding the issues raised in the podcast.
Admitting to System pressures- I admit that the academic reward system is incorrect. Researchers are rewarded based on their publications. Many researchers commit fraud because they want to enhance their careers or get recognized. Everyone is looking to advance in their careers and brands. No researcher is willing to sacrifice their career to conform to the moral standards of research and society.
Disapproval of unethical behaviours- I am afraid I have to disagree with the fraudulent behaviours that researchers are engaging in themselves (Utami & Purnamasari, 2021). Researchers recognize that their outcomes and research are taken seriously, and some even become public policy or some activities that may damage people’s lives, treatments and solutions. One of the most prominent examples where the public was misled is Wakefield’s research on the causes of autism and attributing vaccines as one of the causes of autism development (Steinmetz, 2023). This research impacted people’s belief in the vaccines, and public health was affected.
Enhancement of moral standards- I admit that there has been a failure in the adherence to ethical standards regarding research. I advocate that a board be formed to thoroughly check every research before it is published and even presented to the board so that it can raise criticisms to ensure that all researchers do not engage in fraudulent behaviour.
Advocacy for systemic changes- The system should be revised so winning is not defined only by the number of publications. There should be a system where researchers are encouraged to collaborate to develop quality research that will not mislead the public.
Training programs for all scientific researchers- the system should ensure that they develop training programs to educate young and existing researchers on the dangers of fraud and emphasize the importance of quality rather than quantity publications.
Critique
One critique that may be raised regarding my position on the subject is that there should be a systemic change whereby success is not defined by the number of publications but by the quality of publications, where researchers are advised to work as a group in order to exchange different ideas as this will ensure quality. This will cause laziness, and some researchers will be joyriding at other researchers’ ideas, concepts, and hard work.
As much as this is true, and other researchers will take credit for other people’s ideas, the quality matters. Even when they do not contribute as much to the ideas, they will not lack something to contribute, which will be beneficial at the end of the day. With an emphasis on quantity, researchers are not held accountable and are just after their brands (Utami & Purnamasari, 2021). When we underscore quality, most researchers will take time to complete research before publishing it. It will increase confidence in the public, especially those who will end up in public policy.
In addition, when you start caring more about who will be joyriding on other people’s ideas and methods, you encourage competition. Competition is one of the issues found to result in increased fraudulent behaviour. This is what we are trying to avoid. When these researchers realize that the quality of their work will result in achievements and rewards, they will all avoid laziness.
Furthermore, my position on offering training programs for both young and existing researchers may need criticism as others may not see the need to train existing researchers. These researchers who have stayed long in the game must be reminded of research moral standards to avoid engaging in fraudulent behaviour and focus on quality research.
References
Ahmad, R., Nawaz, M. R., Ishaq, M. I., Khan, M. M., & Ashraf, H. A. (2023). Social exchange theory: Systematic review and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, p. 13, 1015921.
Bernhold, T., & Wiesweg, N. (2021). Principal-agent theory: Perspectives and practices for effective workplace solutions. A Handbook of Management Theories and Models for Office Environments and Services, 117-128.
Honeycutt, N., & Jussim, L. (2022). On the connection between bias and censorship in academia.
Steinmetz, P. N. (2023). The Scientific Frauds Underlying the False MMR Vaccine–Autism Link. Unreason: Best of Skeptical Inquirer, 127.
Utami, D. P. W., & Purnamasari, D. I. (2021). The impact of ethics and fraud pentagon theory on academic fraud behaviour. Journal of Business and Information Systems, 3(1), 49-59.
write