Ensuring the science that we all rely on—whether for our health, environment or economy—is trustworthy is important for universities, governments and business. Unfortunately, academic misconduct is a growing concern where researchers break the rules, such as making up results or copying others’ work, making their research untrustworthy.
A new international study published in Higher Education Research & Development sheds light on the key factors that drive research misconduct in universities, offering crucial insights for strengthening research integrity worldwide.
The study finds that academics believe that research misconduct is significantly more likely when penalties for misconduct are weaker, the likelihood of investigation is low, and the perceived harm caused by misconduct is minimal. At the bottom end, misconduct is least influenced by how complex the research is, whether experts are involved, and whether researchers are exposed to formal training and policies.
Lead author, UTS Business Professor Paul Burke, suggests that “preventing fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other questionable research practices – which undermine the integrity and trustworthiness of a University’s research findings – is primarily about addressing academic incentives, deterrence, and perceived consequences”.
These findings highlight that researchers respond to the same kinds of incentives and disincentives we see in other decision-making contexts. When the risks are low and the consequences limited, misconduct becomes more likely. Education on misconduct matters but deterrence matters more.
The research was conducted by business and ethics researchers from the University of Technology Sydney and University of New South Wales and surveyed the views of more than 900 researchers across Australia, the United States and Europe.
Importantly, the study identifies three distinct groups of researchers, each with different perspectives on what drives misconduct. For experienced researchers, focus on penalties and the likelihood of investigation matters more. Early-career researchers are most influenced by observing the poor behaviours of senior academics. Mid-career STEM researchers emphasise peer pressure, mentoring, and perceived impact. Professor Burke states that “These differences matter. They show that a one-size-fits-all approach to research integrity is unlikely to be effective”.
The findings point to several practical actions universities can take to promote research integrity including increasing transparency around misconduct investigations and outcomes; strengthening and consistently applying penalties for misconduct; creating safe, accessible pathways for reporting concerns; ensuring senior academics model ethical research behaviour; and tailoring integrity initiatives to different career stages and disciplines.
The study also highlights broader cultural challenges in academia. While most researchers reported low personal engagement with misconduct, around one-third indicated they had experienced pressure to engage in questionable practices, and only just over half believed research integrity is strongly prioritised in their field.
The study applied a discrete choice experiment to investigate research integrity, a method more commonly used in economics. Rather than asking researchers to rate factors individually, participants made trade-offs, revealing how they prioritise different drivers in real-world scenarios. “This approach gives us a much clearer picture of what actually matters in relative terms,” Professor Burke said. “It moves beyond simple checklists to understanding which different pressures matter more”.
With public trust in science under increasing scrutiny, the study underscores the importance of strengthening research integrity systems globally. “Universities, funders and journals all have a role to play,” Professor Burke said. “Promoting integrity isn’t just about rules: It’s about creating environments where ethical research is the norm and supported at every level”.
Photo by Patrick Robert Doyle on Unsplash