Las prácticas cuestionables de investigación en la comunidad científica hispanohablante

Ana María Ruiz-Ruano García; Wileidys Artigas Morales; Ilya Casanova; Jorge López Puga

doi:10.3989/redc.2025.1.1605

Authors

Ana María Ruiz-Ruano García Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad de Granada https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7260-0588
Wileidys Artigas Morales Universidad del Zulia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6169-5297
Ilya Casanova Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabí https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1147-7413
Jorge López Puga Departamento de Personalidad, Evaluación y Tratamiento Psicológico, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Granada https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0693-0092

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2025.1.1605

Keywords:

questionable research practices, research misconduct, research integrity, motivation, graph models

Abstract

There are works of a multinational nature on questionable research practices, but these are not frequent and none of them have addressed this problem in the Spanish-speaking scientific community. This study explores these practices in this sector of the scientific community. A multinational sample (19 countries) of 1,254 participants responded to an electronic survey that raised 28 questionable research practices. The results show that coercive citation, questionable leadership practices, omitting the complete reading of scientific articles and the unjustified inclusion of people in authorship lists are the most prevalent practices in this stratum of the scientific community. Furthermore, extrinsic motivations related to social, economic, or job promotion are those most associated with carrying out these questionable practices. This study may be useful in developing strategies preventing this type of behaviors.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abril-Ruiz, A. (2019). Manzanas podridas: malas prácticas de investigación y ciencia descuidada. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/z82mh

Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., y Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists' misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 853-860. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c PMid:17726390

Antonakis, J. (2017). On doing better science: from thrill of discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.006

Artigas, W. C., y Casanova, I. (2020). Malas prácticas en investigación: una discusión necesaria sobre integridad académica. Integridad Académica, 8(4), 9-11.

Aschwanden, C. (2015). Science isn't broken. It's just a hell of a lot harder than we give it credit for. FiveThirtyEight. Disponible en: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken.

Batet, M. (2022). El Parlamento, con la ciencia. El Confidencial. Diponible en: https://blogs.elconfidencial.com/espana/tribuna/2022-11-14/el-parlamento-con-la-ciencia_3522455/.

Biagioli, M. (2016). Watch out for cheats in citation game. Nature, 535, 201. https://doi.org/10.1038/535201a PMid:27411599

Błachnio, A., Cudo, A., Kot, P., Torój, M., Oppong Asante, K., Enea, V., Ben-Ezra, M., Caci, B., Dominguez-Lara, S. A., Kugbey, N., Malik, S., Servidio, R., Tipandjan, A., y Wright, M. F. (2022). Cultural and psychological variables predicting academic dishonesty: a cross-sectional study in nine countries. Ethics and Behavior 32(1), 44-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2021.1910826

Bouter, L. (2023a). Why research integrity matters and how it can be improved. Accountability in Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2189010 PMid:36888916

Bouter, L. (2023b). Research misconduct and questionable research practices form a continuum. Accountability in Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2185141 PMid:36866641

Butler, L. A., Matthias, L., Simard, M. A., Mongeon, P., y Haustein, S. (2023). The oligopoly's shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(4), 778-799. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272

Callaway, E. (2016). Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. Nature, 535, 210-211. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20224 PMid:27411614

Clark, A. M., y Thomson, D. R. (2023). Questionable research practices, careerism, and advocacy: why we must prioritize research quality over its quantity, impact, reach, and results. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 22(1), e4-e6. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvac012 PMid:35234858

Colome, M., y Canario, J. (2015). Consideraciones éticas sobre mala conducta científica en investigación en salud en la República Dominicana, 2015. Eidon, Revista Española de Bioética, 44, 56-66. https://doi.org/10.13184/eidon.44.2015.56-66

Chubin, D. E. (1985). Research Malpractice. BioScience, 35(2), 80-89. https://doi.org/10.2307/1309844

Chumaceiro, A., y Hernández, J. (2018). Reflexiones teóricas para una cultura ética e integridad científica. En G. Ziritt Trejo, M. Acurero, K. Baldovino Noriega (eds.), Diálogo de saberes desde las ciencias económicas, administrativas y contables, 21), 29-42. Fondo Editorial de la Universidad Nacional Experimental Rafael María Baralt (UNERMB).

Corso, P. (2023). Compraventa de autorías de investigaciones alerta a la región. SciDev.Net Disponible en: https://www.scidev.net/america-latina/news/compraventa-de-autorias-de-investigaciones-alerta-a-la-region/.

De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., y Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43 PMid:16810336 PMCid:PMC1483899

Delgado-López-Cózar, E., y Martín-Martín, A. (2019). El Factor de impacto de las revistas científicas sigue siendo ese número que devora la ciencia española: ¿hasta cuándo? Anuario ThinkEPI, 13. https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2019.e13e09

Editorial Nature Human Behaviour. (2017). Promoting reproducibility with registered reports. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0034. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0034

Editorial Nature Human Behaviour. (2019). Transparency in peer review. Nature Human Behavior, 3, 1237. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0799-8 PMid:31827274

Editorial Nature Methods. (2021). What makes an author. Nature Methods, 18, 983. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-021-01271-8 PMid:34480158

Editorial Nature. (2014). Universities challenged. Nature, 514 273. https://doi.org/10.1038/514273a

Editorial Nature. (2022). A big chance for science at the heart of global policymaking. Nature, 610, 232. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03200-x PMid:36220930

Editorial Nature. (2023). How the 'right to science' can help us overcome the many crises we face today. Nature, 623, 887-888. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03712-0 PMid:38017276

Else, H. (2021). Swedish research misconduct agency swamped with cases in first year. Nature, 597, 461. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02451-4 PMid:34518694

Epskamp, S., Borsboom, D., y Fried, E. I. (2018). Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: a tutorial paper. Behavioral Research, 50, 195-212. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1 PMid:28342071 PMCid:PMC5809547

Epskamp, S., Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., Schmittmann, V. D., Borsboom, D. (2012). qgraph: network visualizations of relationships in psychometric data. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(4), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i04

Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. Plos One, 44(5), e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 PMid:19478950 PMCid:PMC2685008

Fire, M., y Guestrin, C. (2019). Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: observing Goodhart's Law in action. GigaScience, 8, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giz053 PMid:31144712 PMCid:PMC6541803

Flanagin, A., Bibbins-Domingo, K., Berkwits, M., y Christiansen, S. (2023). Nonhuman "Authors" and implications for the integrity of scientific publication and medical knowledge. Journal of the American Medical Association, 329(8), 637-639. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.1344 PMid:36719674

Fruchterman, T. M. J., y Reingold, E. M. (1991). Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Software: Practice and Experience, 21(11), 1129-1164. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.4380211102

Galton, D. J. (2012). Did Mendel falsify his data? QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, 105(2), 215-216. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcr195 PMid:22006558

Ghassemi, M., Birhane, A., Bilal, M., Kankaria, S., Malone, C., Mollick, E., y Tustumi, F. (2023, 30 de noviembre). ChatGPT one year on: who is using it, how and why? Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03798-6 PMid:38036860

Giraldo, C. (2023). 'Granja de los científicos': denuncian que docentes universitarios pagan USD 500 para ser incluidos en investigaciones. Infobae. Disponible en: https://www.infobae.com/peru/2023/10/30/granja-de-los-cientificos-denuncian-que-docentes-universitarios-pagan-usd-500-para-ser-incluidos-en-investigaciones/.

Glymour, C., Zhang, K., y Spirtes, P. (2019). Review of causal discovery methods based on graphical models. Frontiers in Genetics, 10, 524. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00524 PMid:31214249 PMCid:PMC6558187

Gopalakrishna, G., ter Riet, G., Vink, G., Stoop, I., Wicherts, J. M., y Bouter, L. M. (2022) Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: a survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. Plos One, 17(2), e0263023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023 PMid:35171921 PMCid:PMC8849616

Goyanes, M., y Rodríguez-Gómez, E. F. (2018). ¿Por qué publicamos? Prevalencia, motivaciones y consecuencias de publicar o perecer. El Profesional de la Información, 27(3), 548-558. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2018.may.08

Grey, A., Bolland, M. J., Avenell, A., Klein, A. A., y Gunsalus, C. K. (2020). Check for publication integrity before misconduct. Nature, 577, 167-169. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03959-6 PMid:31911697

Haven, T., Gopalakrishna, G., Tijdink, J. vander Schot, D., y Bouter, L. (2022). Promoting trust in research and researchers: how open science and research integrity are intertwined. BMC Research Notes, 15, 302. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06169-y PMid:36127719 PMCid:PMC9487848

Hortigüela Alcalá, D., González Calvo, G., y Hernando Garijo, A. (2017). Valoración del investigador sobre los códigos éticos en el ámbito científico. Perfiles Educativos, 39(155), 38-50. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.24486167e.2017.155.58101

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. Plos Medicine, 2(8), 696-701, e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 PMid:16060722 PMCid:PMC1182327

Kai Ong, Y., Double, K. L., Bero, L., y Diong, J. (2023). Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 8(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00129-1 PMid:37277861 PMCid:PMC10242962

Koshland, D. (1987, 9 de enero). Fraud in science. Science, 235(4785), 141. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3798097 PMid:3798097

Lever, J., Krzywinski, M., y Altman, N. (2016). Regularization. Nature Methods, 13, 803-804. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4014

León, O. G., y Montero, I. (2015). Métodos de investigación en psicología y educación. Las tradiciones cuantitativa y cualitativa (4ª ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Mars, M. M. (2009). College student eco-entrepreneurship: A social movement perspective. Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth, 20, 153-172. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1048-4736(2009)0000020010

Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., y Vries, R. (2005, 9 de junio). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737-738. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a PMid:15944677

Mejlgaard, N., Bouter, L. M., Gaskell, G., Kavouras, P., Allum, N., Bendtsen, A.-K., Charitidis, C. A., Claesen, N., Dierickx, K., Domaradzka, A., Reyes Elizondo, A., Foeger, N., Hiney, M., Kaltenbrunner, W., Labib, K., Marušić, A., Sørensen, M. P., Ravn, T., Ščepanović, R., … y Veltri, G. A. (2020, 12 de octubre). Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk. Nature, 586 358-360. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02847-8 PMid:33041342

Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., Simonshn, U., Wagenmakers, E. J., Ware, J. J., y Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021 PMid:33954258 PMCid:PMC7610724

Nagarajan, R., Scutari, M., y Lèbre, S. (2013). Bayesian networks in R. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6446-4

Organización de las Naciones Unidas. (1948, 10 de diciembre). Declaración universal de los derechos humanos. Resolución, 217(3), 34-37. Disponible en: https://www.un.org/es/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

Ortega Priego, J. L., y Delgado-Quirós, L. (2023). La influencia de diferentes modelos de publicación en la presencia y detección de errores y fraude científico. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 46(4), e374. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2023.4.1417

Pagano, R. R. (1999). Estadística para las ciencias del comportamiento (5ª ed.). Thomson.

Pappas, S. (2021). Leading the charge to address research misconduct. Monitor Psychology, 52, 71-75.

Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B. y Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a Typology of University Spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 21, 355-369. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026167105153

Quintana, R. (2022). The ecology of human behavior: A network perspective. Methodological Innovations, 15(1), 42-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/20597991221077911

R Core Team (2021). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Roy, S., y Edwards, M. A. (2023). NSF Fellows' perceptions about incentives, research misconduct, and scientific integrity in STEM academia. Scientific Reports, 13 5701. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32445-3 PMid:37029143 PMCid:PMC10080524

Ruiz-Ruano, A. M., y Puga, J. L. (2022). Mejora de la calidad educativa en educación superior incentivando buenas prácticas de investigación. International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology., 1(2), 75-82. https://doi.org/10.17060/ijodaep.2022.n2.v1.2444

Scutari, M. (2010). Learning bayesian networks with the bnlearn R package. Journal of Statistical Software, 35(3), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v035.i03

Singh Chawla, D. (2019). Elsevier probes dodgy citations. Nature, 573 174. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02639-9 PMid:31506633

Smaldino, P. E., y McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3, 160384. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384 PMid:27703703 PMCid:PMC5043322

Stokel-Walker, C., y Van Noorden, R. (2023). What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science. Nature, 614, 214-216. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00340-6 PMid:36747115

Van Noorden (2023a). More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 - a new record. Nature, 624, 479-481. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8 PMid:38087103

Van Noorden (2023b). How big is science's fake-paper problem? Nature, 623, 466-467. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x PMid:37949983

Van Noorden, R. (2020). Signs of 'citation hacking' flagged in scientific papers. Nature, 584, 508. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02378-2 PMid:32796929

Van Noorden, R., y Singh Chawla, D. (2019). Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database. Nature, 572, 578-579. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02479-7 PMid:31455906

Watermeyer, R., Lanclos, D., y Phipps, L. (2024). Does generative AI help academics to do more or less? Nature, 625, 450. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00115-7 PMid:38228790

Wilcox, C. (2019). Rude reviews are pervasive and sometimes harmful, study finds. Science, 366, 1433. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.366.6472.1433 PMid:31857461

Wouters, P., Sugimoto, C. R., Larivière, V., McVeigh, M. E., Pulverer, B., de Rijcke, S., y Waltman, L. (2019, 29 de mayo). Rethinking impact factors: better ways to judge a journal. Nature, 569, 621-623. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01643-3 PMid:31138924

Xie, Y., Wang, K., y Kong, Y. (2021). Prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9 PMid:34189653