Thank you for participating in the Survey of Research Integrity in Ireland 2025. Every response to this survey is valuable and will help us learn more about factors that support or hinder the responsible conduct of research in Ireland. This survey is completely anonymous and cannot be linked to you or your institution. While answering the survey, please provide the first answer that comes to mind. Completion of the survey will take about 20-25 minutes. More details on the study can be found here: www.srii2025.ie and on its Privacy Policy here.The survey starts after you have given informed consent to participationTo give informed consent, please read the Participant Information and the Data Protection Statement for this survey. This information is important because it details what participation in the survey means for you, how your responses will be used, and your rights regarding your data and how these will be protected.
Consent:
I understand the nature of the study and that I am participating voluntarily. I understand that I can stop my participation at any time. I understand that there is no way to retrieve my survey once completed due to the strict privacy and anonymity arrangements of this study.
I have read the above survey information and I agree to participate in this survey.
Thank you for taking the time to join this survey. We require your consent in order for us to process your data. If you have questions please contact us at info@srii2025.ie. Please now close the browser.
Data Protection Consent:
Please confirm below that you have read the data protection statement and consent to the data being used as described. If you do not consent, then please close this browser window to exit the survey.
I have read the above data protection statement and I agree to participate in this survey.
Thank you for taking the time to join this survey. We require your agreement in order for us to process your data. If you have questions please contact us at info@srii2025.ie. Please now close the browser.
Do you spend, on average, at least 8 hours a week doing research in an Irish university (or in affiliation with one), research centre, institute of Higher Education or public sector organisation? This may include supervision of research by Masters or PhD students.
Thank you for taking the time to join this survey. This survey targets only respondents who engage in academic research activities in the public research system for more than 8 hours per week on average. If you have questions please contact us at info@srii2025.ie. Please now close the browser.
Which option below best describes your academic rank or researcher affiliation? (Please select only one answer) Clarification: Professor includes honorary/adjunct and sponsored professorships
Thank you for taking the time to join this survey. Our survey is targeting only respondents who fulfil one of the listed academic choices. If you have questions please contact us at info@srii2025.ie. Please now close the browser
Were you engaged in empirical research in the last three years?
Empirical research refers to research in which quantitative or qualitative data is collected and/or analysed. Non-empirical research refers to research such as hermeneutic reflection, development of theories, models or codes, and academic design activities like in art or architecture.
Which of the following is your main disciplinary field of research? Select only one
What is your gender?
This section includes a number of statements covering a broad range of issues around organisational justice and fairness that may help or hinder the responsible conduct of research. You will now be presented with several statements and asked to rate them. For each statement, please indicate the extent to which you agree with it
Distributional Organisational Justice
Resource allocation in my department is fair.
Totally Disagree
Totally Agree
The allocation of tasks in my department is biased.
Tenure decisions in my department are often biased.
Decisions about promotion in my department are reasonable.
The management in my department makes fair decisions.
The assessment of my academic performance in the past three years is fair.
Procedural Organisational Justice
The process of allocating resources in my department is poorly managed.
The process of allocating tasks in my department is ethical.
The criteria for tenure in my department are applied consistently.
The process for promotion in my department is poor.
The management in my department is transparent about their decisions.
In my department, academic performances are assessed objectively.
In this section, we present you with items on perceived work pressure, publication pressure, pressure due to funding, competitiveness in your field and mentoring. For each statement, please indicate the first answer that comes to mind.
Work Pressure
How often does it occur that you have enough time to do all the tasks demanded of you?
Never
Always
How often are you assigned too much work to do in a limited time?
How often does it occur that you use AI tools to complete time-consuming tasks (data collection and processing, reviewing large amounts of published and pre-print studies etc.)
How often does too much work prevent you from having enough time to rest?
Publishing Pressure
I feel pressure to publish.
I experience stress at the thought of my colleagues’ assessment of my publication output.
I have the feeling that my colleagues judge me mainly on the basis of my publications.
Publication pressure harms my ability to do good research.
Publication pressure has led me to use AI tools as an assistant when writing up my research.
The current publication climate puts pressure on relationships with fellow researchers.
Publication pressure sometimes leads me to cut corners.Clarification: Cutting corners refers to engaging in questionable research practices to save time or to get spectacular results.
Funding Pressure
Obtaining my own research funding is crucial for my academic career.
I would be able to do my research without obtaining my own funding.
The continuation of my research depends on obtaining my own funding.
I am comfortable using AI tools as an assistant when writing grant applications.
Judgements of my academic performance are independent of my successful grant applications
My job security depends strongly on the research grants I receive.
My prospects for promotion depend on me obtaining research funding.
Mentors
Clarification: A mentor may be a person from the past or present who may be your supervisor, colleague or peer to whom you looked for guidance in your academic career.
How often has your most important mentor provided you with guidance in learning the art of survival in your field?
How often has your most important mentor helped you in developing professional relationships with others in your field?
How often has your most important mentor provided you with guidance in writing grant and contract proposals?
How often has your most important mentor coached you in career advancement?
How often has your most important mentor given you guidance in how to seize career opportunities?
How often has your most important mentor advised you on how to get your research published?
Responsible Mentoring
How often has your most important mentor advised you on the concerns and responsible use of AI tools in your research?
How often has your most important mentor helped you in presenting the limitations of your research?
How often has your most important mentor given you feedback on how to select the most robust research methods?
How often has your most important mentor advised you on making your work as transparent as possible?
How often has your most important mentor coached you on how to deal with conflicts of interest in your work?
How often has your most important mentor provided you with insights into the ethical aspects of a research design?
How often has your most important mentor provided you with guidance on good research practices?Clarification: Good research practices refer to behaviors undertaken to adhere to standards for high quality research within the discipline and guided by principles of honesty, reliability, respect and accountability.
My field functions largely as a community of researchers.
Many researchers in my field are afraid of being scooped by their peers.Clarification: Scooping is when someone else claims priority, typically through publication, for a research idea or result that you have been developing, or when an idea or result is published without proper attribution to those who originated it or achieved the results first.
Many researchers in my field are unhappy when their peers obtain a major award or recognition.
Rivalry between researchers is common in my field.
Researchers in my field working on similar topics are inclined to collaborate with each other.
Most researchers in my field consider their own work to be part of a larger collaborative effort.
This section explores the ideals and values that you as a researcher may subscribe to. For each of the following please indicate the extent to which you personally feel the items should represent the ideal behaviour of researchers.
Researchers evaluate research only on its merit.Clarification: Merit refers to the value of research in terms of improving knowledge or potential societal relevance.
Researchers judge each other’s contributions primarily on the basis of quality.
The acceptance or rejection of claims entering the scholarly domain is independent of the personal or social characteristics of researchers.
Researchers consider all new evidence, hypotheses, theories, and innovations, even those that challenge or contradict their own work.
Researchers are motivated by the desire for knowledge and discovery and not by the possibility of personal gain.
Researchers are clear about what data their work is based on and how results were achieved.
A researcher's contribution to knowledge is never accepted without careful scrutiny.
Researchers put their work in the public domain to be read and used by other researchers and the general public.
Researchers derive satisfaction from the mere act of doing research.
Normative behaviour of research peers: Normative behaviour of research peers refers to your perception of the actual behaviour you observe in your peers. For each of the following statements, please indicate the extent to which you feel the following items actually represent the typical behaviour of your peers.
Researchers actually evaluate research only on its merit.Clarification: Merit refers to the value of research in terms of improving knowledge or potential societal relevance.
Researchers actually judge each other’s contributions primarily on the basis of quality.
The acceptance or rejection of claims entering the scholarly domain is actually independent of the personal or social characteristics of researchers.
Researchers actually consider all new evidence, hypotheses, theories, and innovations, even those that challenge or contradict their own work.
Researchers are actually motivated by the desire for knowledge and discovery and not by the possibility of personal gain.
Researchers are actually clear about what data their work is based on and how results were achieved.
A researcher's contribution to knowledge is actually never accepted without careful scrutiny.
Researchers actually put their work in the public domain to be read and used by other researchers and the general public.
Researchers actually derive satisfaction from the mere act of doing research.
In this section, we present particular Unacceptable Research Practices (URPs) and ask you to indicate how likely it is that these URPs are detected by:Collaborators: Defined as students, colleagues, or other researchers with whom the researcher works together on one or more research projects.Reviewers: Defined as research peers who, in the context of publishing the work, independently assess its quality.If the described practice does not apply to research in your field, please select 'Not applicable'
Detection by Collaborator
How likely is it that a collaborator detects that a researcher in your field…Provides insufficient supervision or mentoring to less experienced co-workers.
Very Unlikely
Very Likely
How likely is it that a collaborator detects that a researcher in your field...Does not submit (or resubmit) for publication a valid negative study.Clarification: A valid negative study may be defined as one that did not support your original study hypothesis.
How likely is it that a collaborator detects that a researcher in your field…Keeps inadequate notes of their research process in their project.
How likely is it that a collaborator detects that a researcher in your field…Uses AI tools to write substantial parts of their publication
How likely is it that a collaborator detects that a researcher in your field...Uses published or unpublished ideas or phrases without properly referencing the originating source.
How likely is it that a collaborator detects that a researcher in your field...Unfairly reviews papers, grant applications, or colleagues applying for promotion.
How likely is it that a collaborator detects that a researcher in your field...Falsifies or fabricates data in their research.
Detection by Reviewer
How likely is it that a reviewer detects that a researcher in your field...Draws conclusions that were not sufficiently substantiated by their study.
How likely is it that a reviewer detects that a researcher in your field...Chooses an inadequate research design or uses evidently unsuitable measurement instruments for his/her study.
How likely is it that a reviewer detects that a researcher in your field...Gives insufficient attention to the equipment, skills or expertise essential to perform his/her study.
How likely is it that a reviewer detects that a researcher in your field...Fails to report clearly relevant details of the study method.
How likely is it that a reviewer detects that a researcher in your field...Insufficiently reports study flaws and limitations.
How likely is it that a reviewer detects that a researcher in your field…Uses AI tools to write substantial parts of their publication.
How likely is it that a reviewer detects that a researcher in your field...Selectively cites references to enhance their own findings or convictions.
How likely is it that a reviewer detects that a researcher in your field….Falsifies or fabricates data in their research
Research practices in your discipline: Please specify how often you engage in the research practices listed below.If the research practice does not apply to you, please select 'Not Applicable'.It is vital that you provide honest answers to the questions since this is the only way that we can understand the current prevalence of both good and poor practices in Irish research. Your answers are very important to us, are totally anonymous and cannot be traced back to any individual or institution.
In the last three years, I disclosed who funded my studies and all my relevant financial and non-financial interests in my publications.
In the last three years, I took steps to correct errors in my published work whenever I and/or peers provided valid reasons for such a correction.
In the last three years, I gave insufficient attention to the equipment, skills or expertise essential to perform my studies.
In the last three years, the allocation and ordering of authorships in my publications were fair and in line with the standards of my discipline.Clarification: Fair allocation refers to the inclusion of all authors who made a genuine intellectual contribution to at least one of the following elements: the design of the research, the acquisition of data, its analysis or the interpretation of findings.
In the last three years, I meticulously checked the validity of references that I generated through the use of AI tools.
In the last three years, I insufficiently supervised or mentored junior co-workers.
In the last three years, I contributed, where appropriate, to making my research data findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable in accordance with the FAIR principles.Clarification: For some types of research this means providing detailed descriptions of where source material can be found (complete with relevant file numbers, page numbers, etc.).
In the last three years, I chose inadequate research designs or used obviously unsuitable measurement instruments for my studies.Clarification: An inadequate research design or measurement instrument may also refer to knowingly choosing a research approach or theory that is clearly inadequate to answer the overall study question.
In the last three years, I unfairly reviewed manuscripts, grant applications or colleagues applying for promotion.
In the last three years, I kept a comprehensive record of my research decisions throughout my studies.
In the last three years, I drew conclusions that were not sufficiently substantiated by my studies.
In the last three years, I used published or unpublished ideas or phrases from others without properly referencing their source.
In the last three years, I failed to disclose the substantial use of AI tools in drafting my manuscript.
In the last three years, I pre-registered my study protocols in line with open science practices.
In the last three years, I kept inadequate notes of my research process in a project.
In the last three years, I did not mention clearly important details of my study method in my publications.
In the last three years, I managed my research data carefully by storing both the raw and processed versions for a period appropriate to my discipline and the methodology used.
In the last three years, my research was published under open access conditions. Clarification: Open access publication refers to publication where there are no financial, legal or technical barriers to accessing it.
In the last three years, when making use of other people’s ideas, procedures, results and text in my publications, I cited the source accurately in accordance with the standards of my discipline.
In the last three years, I chose not to submit or resubmit valid negative studies for publication.Clarification: A valid negative study may be defined as one that did not support your original study. hypothesis
In the last three years, I fully disclosed and made accessible on open science platforms my underlying data, computer codes, or syntaxes used in my research.
In the last three years, I insufficiently mentioned study flaws and limitations in my publications.
In the last three years, before releasing the results of my research, I meticulously checked my work to avoid errors and biases.
In the last three years, I fully disclosed the use of AI tools in my research to optimise experimental design or conduct analysis.
In the last three years, I selectively cited references to enhance my own findings or convictions.Clarification: This also refers to intentionally excluding references that might undermine your theory or the argument you want to make.
Research Misconduct
Nearly there! The last two questions are very important to the study. Remembering that the survey is totally anonymous and that your answers cannot be traced to you or your institution, please answer honestly.
In the last three years, I fabricated data in my research.Clarification: Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them as real.
In the last three years, I falsified data in my research.Clarification: Falsification refers to manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
Please now select the “Submit” button to the bottom right to submit your responses to the survey
Licensed to evasys ltd. - evasys V10.0 (2617) - Copyright © 2024 evasys GmbHopens a new window. All rights reserved.
