Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Incentive Theory: Pull Theory of Motivation01:18

Incentive Theory: Pull Theory of Motivation

1.4K
Incentive theory, or the "pull theory" of motivation, suggests that external rewards primarily drive behavior. Individuals are motivated to engage in activities when they anticipate a desirable outcome. This is why people often work hard for promotions or study intensively to achieve high grades. These incentives can be tangible, physical rewards such as money or promotions, or intangible, non-physical rewards like praise and social recognition.
The theory differentiates between...
1.4K
Motivational Bias01:25

Motivational Bias

486
Cognitive bias results from limitations in thinking and information processing, leading to systematic errors in judgment. Conversely, motivational bias stems from personal desires or emotions, causing distortions in perception to align with self-interest. Motivational bias influences how individuals perceive and attribute causes to events, often shaped by personal needs, goals, and self-esteem preservation. This bias can distort judgment, leading to inaccurate assessments of success, failure,...
486
Compensation Mechanisms01:28

Compensation Mechanisms

2.6K
The human body employs intricate mechanisms to counteract changes in blood pH, preventing conditions like acidosis (pH < 7.35) and alkalosis (pH > 7.45). These compensatory responses aim to restore normal arterial blood pH by engaging respiratory or renal systems, depending on the source of the imbalance.
Respiratory Compensation
This mechanism addresses metabolic-induced pH imbalances by adjusting breathing rates. Respiratory compensation begins within minutes of detecting a pH...
2.6K
Bias01:22

Bias

8.1K
Bias refers to any tendency that prevents a question from being considered unprejudiced. In research, bias occurs when one outcome or answer is selected or encouraged over others in sampling or testing. Bias can occur during any research phase, including study design, data collection, analysis, and publication.
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
8.1K
The Stanford Prison Experiment03:20

The Stanford Prison Experiment

25.2K
The famous and controversial Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by social psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues at Stanford University, demonstrated the power of social roles, social norms, and scripts.
25.2K
Outliers and Influential Points01:08

Outliers and Influential Points

6.8K
An outlier is an observation of data that does not fit the rest of the data. It is sometimes called an extreme value. When you graph an outlier, it will appear not to fit the pattern of the graph. Some outliers are due to mistakes (for example, writing down 50 instead of 500), while others may indicate that something unusual is happening. Outliers are present far from the least squares line in the vertical direction. They have large "errors," where the "error" or residual is the...
6.8K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Navigating Ambiguity and Uncertainty in End-of-Life Care Research Practice.

Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE·2025
Same author

Attitudes and perceptions of biomedical journal editors in chief towards the use of artificial intelligence chatbots in the scholarly publishing process: a cross-sectional survey.

Research integrity and peer review·2025
Same author

Handling conflicts of interest concerns more than transparency.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2025
Same author

Improving peer review of systematic reviews and related review types by involving librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers: a randomised controlled trial.

BMJ evidence-based medicine·2025
Same author

Increasing transparency of decision making in research practice: adding value or just more red tape?

European journal of epidemiology·2025
Same author

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: An Ethnographic Study of Researcher Discretion in Practice.

Science and engineering ethics·2024
Same journal

Correction.

Accountability in research·2026
Same journal

Development, validity, and reliability of the pre-attendance conference evaluator (PACE) tool for identifying predatory conferences.

Accountability in research·2026
Same journal

Managing manuscripts with potential dual-use research of concern: A thematic analysis of life science journal policies.

Accountability in research·2026
Same journal

Researching retraction: Do we need more rules or more honesty?

Accountability in research·2026
Same journal

Accountability in evidence syntheses: On the need for rigorous peer review and reporting guidelines.

Accountability in research·2026
Same journal

Shared responsibility to address questionable research practices? - A study of perceived efficacy of organizational research integrity policies.

Accountability in research·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 18, 2026

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice
07:07

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Published on: June 5, 2016

9.3K

Commentary: Perverse incentives or rotten apples?

Lex M Bouter1

  • 1a Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics , VU University Medical Center , Amsterdam , The Netherlands.

Accountability in Research
|January 31, 2015
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Scientific misconduct is prevalent, with 2% of researchers admitting to data fabrication and 34% engaging in questionable research practices. Addressing research integrity requires robust training, a positive research culture, and transparent procedures.

Keywords:
peer reviewquestionable research practicesresearch integrityresearch misconductresponsible conduct of researchselective reporting

More Related Videos

A Conflict Model of Reward-seeking Behavior in Male Rats
06:11

A Conflict Model of Reward-seeking Behavior in Male Rats

Published on: February 20, 2019

8.0K
Pavlovian Conditioned Approach Training in Rats
06:57

Pavlovian Conditioned Approach Training in Rats

Published on: February 4, 2016

11.7K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 18, 2026

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice
07:07

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Published on: June 5, 2016

9.3K
A Conflict Model of Reward-seeking Behavior in Male Rats
06:11

A Conflict Model of Reward-seeking Behavior in Male Rats

Published on: February 20, 2019

8.0K
Pavlovian Conditioned Approach Training in Rats
06:57

Pavlovian Conditioned Approach Training in Rats

Published on: February 4, 2016

11.7K

Area of Science:

  • Scientific integrity and research ethics.

Background:

  • A significant percentage of researchers admit to scientific misconduct, including data falsification and fabrication.
  • Many researchers engage in questionable research practices (QRPs) such as selective data analysis and reporting to fit theoretical frameworks.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To highlight the prevalence of scientific misconduct and QRPs in research.
  • To emphasize the importance of preventative measures for maintaining research integrity.

Main Methods:

  • The study relies on self-reported data from investigators regarding their research practices.
  • Analysis of admitted instances of data falsification, fabrication, and engagement in QRPs.

Main Results:

  • Approximately 2% of investigators have falsified or fabricated data.
  • A substantial 34% of researchers report engaging in one or more QRPs.

Conclusions:

  • Preventing QRPs is crucial for upholding scientific integrity.
  • Universities must foster adequate research training and culture, address perverse incentives like publication pressure, and implement clear guidelines and transparent procedures for handling misconduct allegations.