Unveiling the Shadows: Questionable Research Practices in Grant Funding

by Jon Scaccia November 6, 2023

Competitive grant funding is the lifeblood of research, particularly in public health and the sciences. But what happens when the pursuit of this funding encourages dubious practices? A recent study published in PLOS ONE titled “Questionable research practices in competitive grant funding: A survey” (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293310) sheds light on this concerning issue, revealing how widespread questionable research practices (QRPs) are in the process of securing research grants.

Exploring the Methods

The study’s methodology stands robust with an exploratory analysis digging into how often researchers engage in QRPs and if certain demographics are more prone to these practices. By analyzing responses from a variety of disciplines, particularly highlighting the frequency of QRPs in the Life & Biomedical Sciences versus the Arts & Humanities, the study opens up a conversation on ethical practices in research funding.

Key Findings: A Closer Look

The findings are as striking as they are significant. Over half of the respondents reported concerns with the reliability of peer review, painting a grim picture of the challenges faced by researchers in fair and unbiased funding assessments. Furthermore, the study dispels some prior assumptions, revealing no strong correlation between gender and the likelihood of engaging in QRPs, nor between funding success rates and QRP prevalence.

The Public Health Perspective

From a public health viewpoint, these findings are particularly unsettling. Public health research relies on integrity and transparency to inform policies and interventions. If QRPs are prevalent, it undermines the trust in the data that shapes public health decisions, potentially leading to less effective or even harmful outcomes.

Competitive Funding: A Breeding Ground for QRPs?

The competitive nature of grant funding appears to fuel these unethical practices. Researchers, under immense pressure to secure funding, may engage in QRPs to boost their chances. This not only jeopardizes the quality and integrity of research but also skews the competition, disadvantaging those who adhere to ethical standards.

Implications and Recommendations

The study suggests that reducing the competitive nature of grant funding could mitigate QRPs. For public health, this implies creating more collaborative and transparent funding processes that prioritize integrity and the potential impact of research over competitiveness.

Moreover, funding agencies and research institutions have a crucial role to play. They can discourage QRPs by revising their policies and placing greater emphasis on ethical conduct. For example, explicit requirements for reporting potential QRPs in funding applications and adopting alternative funding mechanisms, such as lottery or baseline funding, could be a step in the right direction.

Conclusion: A Call for Change

The pervasive nature of QRPs in competitive grant funding, as revealed by this study, calls for a collective re-evaluation of the current system. For the sake of public health and the credibility of scientific research at large, it is imperative to foster an environment where integrity triumphs over the cutthroat race for funding.

Creating such an environment will not only enhance the quality of research but also ensure that public health policies and interventions are built on solid, ethically obtained evidence. The future of competitive funding must be one where honesty is the best policy, not the exception.

Stay Current with Public Health Research

Sign up for our free weekly science recap today!