Skip to main content

Table 1 Framework and included factors

From: Individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors associated with questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific health services research publications

1 Research environment ‘culture’

2 Institutional conditions

3 Individual researcher characteristics

Funding

 • Funding rewards innovation & novelty

 • Demands of the funder

Valorisation of research outcomes

 • Revenue model

 • Public media

 • Media pressure

Policies & practices scientific society

 • Competition for research positions

 • Journal policies & practices

 • Peer review process

 • Pressure to publish ‘exciting’ articles

Collaborating partners

 • Conflicts of interest

Research beneficiaries / stakeholders

 • Usefulness: study designed without proper consideration of the value for e.g. patients

Structural conditions/resources

• Education

• Reward system / incentives

• Presence and adherence to a Research code

• Recruitment & selection researchers

• Presence of formal quality policy

• Transparency study materials/data

Social conditions

• Opportunities for peer-discussion

• Presence of colloquia for article discussion

• Review of pre-publication findings

• Competitiveness

Role of supervisors

• Task perception

• Workload

• Social skills (in supervision, and collaboration)

Cultural conditions

• Ideology institute

• Functioning of the ICT infrastructure

• Open organisation culture

Motivation

• Promotion

• Respect from peers

• Focus on short-term success

• Ideology

Capabilities

• Research training in HSR

• Writing skills

• Training research integrity

• Social skills

• Self-efficacy (to stand up to pressure)

Working conditions

• Workload

• Work pressure

Perceptions

• Self-perception

• Perception of others

Personality traits

• Narcissism