Table 3 Top 5 rankings according to frequency, impact on truth and trust, and preventability

Rank number

Frequency (1–5)

Mean score (95% CI^a)

 1

Selectively cite to enhance your own findings or convictions (R)

3.53 (3.26–3.80)

 2

Insufficiently supervise or mentor junior coworkers (C)

3.46 (3.18–3.74)

 3

Not publish a valid “negative” study (R)

3.39 (3.09–3.70)

 4

Demand or accept an authorship for which one does not qualify (C)

3.35 (3.02–3.69)

 5

Selectively cite to please editors, reviewers, or colleagues (R)

3.29 (2.95–3.63)

Rank number

Impact on truth (1–5)

Mean score (95% CI)

 1

Fabricate data (D)

4.63 (4.43–4.84)

 2

Selectively delete data, modify data or add fabricated data after performing initial data-analyses (R)

4.36 (4.11–4.62)

 3

Modify the results or conclusions of a study due to pressure of a sponsor (R)

4.35 (4.13–4.59)

 4

Choose a clearly inadequate research design or using evidently unsuitable measurement instruments (S)

4.18 (3.93–4.42)

 5

Conceal results that contradict your earlier findings or convictions (R)

4.04 (3.78–4.31)

Rank number

Impact on trust (1–5)

Mean score (95% CI)

 1

Fabricate data (D)

4.70 (4.51–4.89)

 2

Selectively delete data, modify data, or add fabricated data after performing initial data-analyses (R)

4.48 (4.28–4.69)

 3

Modify the results or conclusions of a study due to pressure of a sponsor (R)

4.40 (4.15–4.66)

 4

Review your own papers (C)

4.08 (3.63–4.52)

 5

Unfairly review papers, grant applications or colleagues applying for promotion (C)

4.06 (3.79–4.34)

Rank number

Preventability (1–5)

Mean score (95% CI)

 1

Ignore substantial safety risks of the study to participants, workers, or environment (S)

3.91 (3.58–4.25)

 2

Review your own papers (C)

3.88 (3.47–4.30)

 3

Ignore basic principles of quality assurance (D)

3.83 (3.61–4.05)

 4

Use published ideas or phrases of others without referencing (C)

3.81 (3.55–4.08)

 5

Inadequately handle or store data or (bio)materials (D)

3.79 (3.50–4.08)

Rank number

Product of frequency and impact on truth (1–25)

Mean score (95% CI)

 1

Insufficiently supervise or mentor junior coworkers (C)

12.59 (11.29–13.89)

 2

Insufficiently report study flaws and limitations (R)

12.32 (10.99–13.65)

 3

Keep inadequate notes of the research process (D)

12.18 (10.57–13.78)

 4

Turn a blind eye to putative breaches of research integrity by others (C)

12.12 (10.69–13.56)

 5

Ignore basic principles of quality assurance (D)

12.04 (10.72–13.36)

Rank number

Product of frequency and impact on trust (1–25)

Mean score (95% CI)

 1

Use published ideas or phrases of others without referencing (C)

12.08 (10.66–13.50)

 2

Insufficiently report study flaws and limitations (R)

12.04 (10.68–13.41)

 3

Turn a blind eye to putative breaches of research integrity by others (C)

11.96 (10.43–13.49)

 4

Insufficiently supervise or mentor junior coworkers (C)

11.81 (10.55–13.07)

 5

Ignore basic principles of quality assurance (D)

11.76 (10.40–13.11)

Rank number

Product of frequency and preventability (1–25)

Mean score (95% CI)

 1

Insufficiently supervise or mentor junior coworkers (C)

12.96 (11.57–14.36)

 2

Inadequately handle or store data or (bio)materials (D)

11.97 (10.22–13.72)

 3

Use published ideas or phrases of others without referencing (C)

11.91 (10.49–13.32)

 4

Keep inadequate notes of the research process (D)

11.88 (10.37–13.40)

 5

Ignore basic principles of quality assurance (D)

11.40 (10.11–12.68)