Questionable research practices in competitive grant funding: A survey

Area of Science:

• Research Integrity
• Scientific Funding
• Peer Review

Background:

• Growing interest in research integrity, yet limited empirical research on questionable research practices (QRPs) in research funding.
• Existing studies on QRPs primarily focus on research design, data collection, and analysis, neglecting the funding context.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the prevalence of QRPs among applicants, reviewers, and panel members of a major funding agency.
• To address the gap in empirical research concerning QRPs within the grant peer review process.

Main Methods:

• Cross-sectional, pre-registered survey of 704 respondents (applicants, reviewers, panel members) from the Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO).
• Bespoke survey developed and refined through expert feedback and a pilot study, querying engagement in QRPs over ten years.
• Email invitations and newsletter features used for participant recruitment.

Main Results:

• Remarkable prevalence of QRPs: over 60% of participants engaged regularly in at least one QRP.
• Around 40% reported occasional engagement in half of the queried QRPs; only 12% reported no QRP engagement.
• No significant gender differences or association between QRP prevalence and grant success rates were found.
• Half of respondents doubted the reliability of the grant peer review process more often than not.

Conclusions:

• QRPs are highly prevalent in the context of research funding applications and reviews.
• Findings suggest a need for preventive measures and reconsideration of current grant peer review practices.
• The study provides empirical evidence on QRPs in funding, challenging assumptions and highlighting systemic issues.