Order:
  1.  2
    Researchers’ Perceptions of Research Misbehaviours: A Mixed Methods Study Among Academic Researchers in Amsterdam.Lex M. Bouter, Gerben ter Riet, Guy Widdershoven, H. Roeline Pasman, Joeri K. Tijdink & Tamarinde L. Haven - 2019 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 4 (1).
    BackgroundThere is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields.MethodsWe used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  2.  3
    Personally Perceived Publication Pressure: Revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire by Using Work Stress Models.Frans Jeroen Oort, Joeri K. Tijdink, Marije Esther Evalien de Goede & Tamarinde L. Haven - 2019 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 4 (1).
    BackgroundThe emphasis on impact factors and the quantity of publications intensifies competition between researchers. This competition was traditionally considered an incentive to produce high-quality work, but there are unwanted side-effects of this competition like publication pressure. To measure the effect of publication pressure on researchers, the Publication Pressure Questionnaire was developed. Upon using the PPQ, some issues came to light that motivated a revision.MethodWe constructed two new subscales based on work stress models using the facet method. We administered the revised (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  3.  7
    The Effects of Industry Funding and Positive Outcomes in the Interpretation of Clinical Trial Results: A Randomized Trial Among Dutch Psychiatrists.Joeri K. Tijdink, Yvo M. Smulders, Lex M. Bouter & Christiaan H. Vinkers - 2019 - BMC Medical Ethics 20 (1):1-8.
    Most studies are inclined to report positive rather than negative or inconclusive results. It is currently unknown how clinicians appraise the results of a randomized clinical trial. For example, how does the study funding source influence the appraisal of an RCT, and do positive findings influence perceived credibility and clinical relevance? This study investigates whether psychiatrists’ appraisal of a scientific abstract is influenced by industry funding disclosures and a positive outcome. Dutch psychiatrists were randomized to evaluate a scientific abstract describing (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark