“Whoever has the most publications win”: time pressure, accelerated research processes and research integrity in contemporary academia

“Whoever has the most publications win”: time pressure, accelerated research processes and research integrity in contemporary academia | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article “Whoever has the most publications win”: time pressure, accelerated research processes and research integrity in contemporary academia Mads P. Sørensen, Marina Lambert, Tine Ravn This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4467477/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The paper analyses the merit and reward system in contemporary academia and its influence on current knowledge production. This is done via a secondary analysis of 36 focus group interviews across seven European countries in which 172 researchers took part. Across countries, disciplines, gender, and seniority the interviewees paint a strikingly similar picture of the current reward and merit system in academia, which is perceived to reward speed and quantity at the expense of quality and integrity, and thereby potentially harming the robustness of the knowledge produced. The interviewees likewise express a longing for a more qualitative assessment system (in line with the ideas of the ‘research assessment reform movement’, cf. DORA, CoARA etc.). The theoretical frame for the analysis consists of theories of acceleration-related change in academia (Rosa, 2010, 2013, Ylijoki and Mäntylä, 2003; Ylijoki, 2015; Vostal, 2015, Vostal et al., 2019; Müller, 2014; Felt, 2017). The study uses this theoretical lens to give a unique insight into the effects of accelerated research processes on contemporary knowledge production, including a deeper understanding of the widespread use of questionable research practices (QRPs). Sociology Research integrity research quality acceleration QRPs misconduct research assessment reform movement Introduction During the last 15 years a reform movement to change the way research and researchers are assessed has developed (Rushforth and Hammarfelt 2024). This research assessment reform movement consist of a broad alliance of researchers, institutions, and research reform organisations and initiatives (see e.g. Curry et al. 2020). One common feature of the movement is its recommendation to research institutions, funders, and academics to put less emphasise on quantitative metrics and more emphasis on qualitative peer reviews, when performing research assessments. The core documents of the movement include The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) created by the American Society for Cell Biology, following a conference in San Francisco in 2012 (DORA 2024a). The DORA declaration stresses the importance of moving away from journal-based metrics, such as the Journal Impact Factor, when assessing the quality of research, and has been signed by 24,553 individuals and organizations in 165 countries by February 2024 (DORA 2024b). The Leiden Manifesto, which lists 10 principles for more responsible research assessments, is another important document for the movement (Hicks et al. 2015). A third central document is the Hong Kong principles created in relation to the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) in Hong Kong in 2019 (Moher et al. 2020). It especially underlines the importance of looking at the quality of the research process when doing assessments. In general, the research assessment reform movement has been successful in putting the need for reforms on the policy agenda. The best example of this is the newly (2022) formed Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), which is connected to the European Research Area (ERA), i.e. the European Union’s (EU) attempt to create a single, borderless market for research, innovation, and technology. Research institutions can join CoARA by signing the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment (CoARA, 2024a). So far (February 2024), 688 research performing organisations and funders have done this (CoARA, 2024b). They commit to actively and constructively reform research assessment practices, which include recognising that research assessments primarily must be based on “qualitative judgement, for which peer review is central” and only should be supported by quantitative indicators when this can be done in a responsible way (CoARA, 2024a p.2). Another fundamental principle in the Agreement is to “Comply with ethics and integrity rules and practices, and ensure that ethics and integrity are the highest priority, never compromised by any counter-incentives.” (CoARA, 2024a, p.3). However, as we shall see in this article, there is still a long way to go before this becomes standard assessment practices for funders and research institutions. The 172 researchers, who took part in our study, are far from convinced that they will be assessed on the basis of the quality and integrity of the research process or by qualitative judgements of their complete portfolio. To the contrary, to be able to compete for funding and positions, researchers experience they need to prioritise quantity over quality, speed over thoroughness, and to publish as soon as they have first findings instead of waiting until they have more robust results. Across differences (countries, disciplines, gender and seniority), there is a shared feeling among the interviewees that ‘whoever has the most publications win’, and not ‘whoever was most thorough and paid most attention to quality during the research process’ gets the grants and positions. The reason for this is what we will call a system failure in the reward and merit system of academia. This failure means that academia encourages and rewards individual research behaviour that at the same time jeopardizes the quality of the knowledge produced. Put differently, what benefits thoroughness in the research process and provide reliable and robust research results often does not benefit individual researchers’ careers as pointed out by Aubert Bonn and Pinxten (2021). The findings and analyses presented in this paper is based on a secondary analysis of thirty-six focus group interviews conducted with researchers in seven European countries as part of two research integrity projects (see Methods section below for more details). We re-examined the focus group interviews to gain a deeper understanding of the current research culture and to better understand the conditions of opportunity for good research practices in contemporary academia. We do this through an analysis of the narratives of the interviewees. Narratives are important, because they – as Felt has put it – guide researchers by tacitly defining “the horizons of possible and acceptable action” (Felt, 2017, p.143). Theoretically, our study is inspired by Hartmut Rosa’s theory of acceleration in modern societies (Rosa, 2010, 2013) as well as by scholarly work on acceleration-related change in the academy (Ylijoki and Mäntylä, 2003; Ylijoki, 2015; Vostal, 2015, Vostal et al., 2019; Müller, 2014; Felt, 2017). We wanted to know more about researchers’ perception and experiences of acceleration and the current reward and merit system in academia – and the related impact these perceptions and experiences have on research integrity and the quality of the research work. The re-coding and re-analysis of the interviews, accordingly, focussed on issues related to acceleration, time (pressure), and research integrity. The article unfolds as follows. First , we present the theoretical framework that inspired our study. Second , we present the methods used and our analytical strategy. Third , we present our findings, focussing on researchers’ experience of time pressure, the way they see time pressure impacting on the research process and the quality assurance system within research. We further examine researchers’ perception of the causes for the time pressure they experience before we based on the findings draw the contours of the contemporary reward and merit system in research. Fourth , we discuss our findings in relation to studies on research misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs), before we summarise our findings and analysis in a conclusion. Theoretical frame One of the most interesting and influential contemporary theories on modernity – on what characterises and drives modern societies – is the German sociologist Hartmut Rosa’s theory on acceleration (2010, 2013). According to Rosa, modern societies are characterised by an historically unprecedented increase in the speed of technological and social change that also accelerate the ‘pace of life’. Competition is a central concept in Rosa’s theory. It is to him the driving force behind the technological, social and ‘pace of life’ acceleration we experience (2010, pp. 26-29). The capitalistic marked economy plays a significant role in this development, but competition is generally the primary way of allocating resources, prestige, and positions in modern societies. This is obviously the case in the market economy, elite sports, and politics, but competition also plays a huge role in academia, where the allocation of grants, positions and promotions is based on competition. Despite its merits as a compelling framework for understanding the human condition in modern societies in general and to some extent within academia, Rosa’s theory of acceleration has also been criticized and found too simplistic to capture the complexities of time issues related to scientific knowledge production. Felt (2017), for example, on the one side found strong support for Rosa’s general acceleration hypothesis within academia, but at the same time she also emphasises that a theory of acceleration within academia must be able to incorporate examples of “micro-resistance and of successful efforts of local re-timing” (p. 141). Vostal et al. (2019) argues in favour of what they call temporal complexity in scientific knowledge production. Without directly arguing against Rosa, they write that “… science is characterized by layers and levels of diverse temporalities, rather than by one type of temporality: either problematic and much criticized ‘fast academia’ fed by neoliberal reforms/ideology or, often relatedly, ready and normative accounts demanding ‘slowdown’ of science/academia.” (p. 793). To them, “Manoeuvring, (un)bending, (dis)connecting, responding and reacting to, (re)routing and (re)orienting both expected and unexpected tempos of experimental, cognitive and institutional nature constitute a fundamental feature in the process of scientific knowledge production.” (p. 799). In an earlier article, closer to the work of Rosa, Vostal (2015) investigated the tension between different forms of time requirements and time-desires – fast and slow – in academia and especially analysed the feeling of guilt that academics can experience as a result of not being able to decide the pace of their work and because of the prioritisations they are forced to make. Based on 52 interviews with researchers, Ylijoki and Mäntylä (2003) analysed researchers’ experience of time in academia and construct four analytical categories or experiences of time: 1) ‘Scheduled time’, which is the externally imposed and controlled timetables (i.e., meetings, deadlines, supervision, lecturing hours, admin etc.). According to Ylijoki and Mäntylä an important feature of this form of time is its accelerating pace. There is a feeling of having to do more and more of these externally imposed tasks. 2) In stark contrast to scheduled time is ‘timeless time’. This form of time is internally motivated and it’s a form of time in which clock time loses its importance. Instead, this time relates to researchers’ enthusiasm and fascination of their work and sometimes also to a feeling of being in ‘flow’. For most of the interviewees ‘timeless time’ is seen as an ideal, something they perhaps experienced when working with their PhD thesis, something they still encounter from time to time, or something they strive for, something that they might reach in the future, when they are done with their current obligations. 3) Ylijoki and Mäntylä also discuss a third form of time, called ‘contracted time’. This form of time is connected to the experience of time in relation to fixed-term research and work contracts. It includes a strong focus on the time that is left of one’s current contract, and the opportunities for getting a new contract. This form of employment gives the researchers little time to rest or make long time plans. There is a strong focus on achievable results within the contract period and to funders and employers. According to Ylijoki and Mäntylä, the “dominating time perspective in an academic unit are temporary, episodic and contracted”, because of the growing number of fixed-termed researchers. 4) Finally, Ylijoki and Mäntylä also identify a fourth form of time called ‘personal time’. This form of time is closely connected to the finitude of human existence, to life and death. It has to do with the time researchers spent on themselves, their families, and friends. With a concept from Arlie Hochschild, Ylijoki and Mäntylä writes that researchers’ often end up having to steal time from their families and themselves to fulfil their obligations (scheduled time, contracted time) and to be able to experience ‘timeless time’. In Ylijoki (2015), the meaning of contracted time, here referred to as ‘project time’, is explored further. Ylijoki makes a distinction between ‘project time’ and ‘process time’. According to Ylijoki, we have experienced a projectification of the whole of society, and not least of academia. Here, the project format has become the standard way of organising research and with Barbara Adams, project time is described as dominated by the four Cs: commodification, control, colonization, and compression of time. In the paper, Ylijoki analyses the tension between the clock controlled ‘project time’, which she also describes as linear, cumulative, and progressive, and ‘process time’, which is blurred, obscure, and unlimited. She summarises the difference as “… project time represents the temporality inherent in the project format, which has become the dominant method for organizing academic research (and several other activities) at the present-day university. Process time, embedded in the internal logic of research activity, stands in many respects in opposition to project time.” (Ylijoki 2015, p. 97). As we shall see in the Findings section, lack of time and time pressure are important concepts in our study, used by the interviewees to explain why research quality has come under pressure. Time pressure can be understood in relation to Ylijoki’s concepts of project time and process time. If the time allocated to a particular piece of research ( project time ) is less than what is needed to carry out the research ( process time ), then a researcher will experience time pressure. However, time pressure can also be related to what Müller (2014) calls ‘anticipatory acceleration’ in her study of early career researchers within the life sciences. She defines ‘anticipatory acceleration’ as a “[…] type of acceleration that aims at increasing units of output per units of time that is not developed in response to a certain event or specific time horizon, but rather constitutes a generalized response to a state of pervasive competition […]” (Müller 2014). The feeling of time pressure is here connected to the general competition within academia and can be understood as a side-effect of career concerns, i.e., of the anticipation of the research output needed for having a career in academia. As Müller puts it: “Under the conditions of anticipatory acceleration everyday time is always scarce and desired to be devoted to those activities that can increase the output per time ratio.” (Müller 2014). Methods and analytical approach Although many things point in the direction of increased speed in academia – that we have to handle more activities per time unit in academia today than previously – we will in this paper use what Rosa calls a subjective approach to the study of time and research integrity (2010, p. 21). We do not attempt to measure the objective changes that have occurred in academia, i.e., the number of activities handled per time unit before and now but will focus on researchers’ experiences of time (pressure) and acceleration in relation to research integrity with the objective to understand researchers’ experience of time and the room for focusing on quality in the research process. An objective approach would focus on and examine the number of tasks that researchers must handle today compared to previously and ask questions like: “Are the sum of tasks we have to deal with per time unit today bigger than the sum we had to take care of 10, 20, or 30 years ago?”, “Do we (have to) write and publish more today than previously (to get promoted, for example)?”, “Can we detect an acceleration in the number of publications and achievements you need to have on your CV to get a permanent position in academia?” On the other hand, a subjective approach – in our case – is more interested in the researchers’ experience and perception of time pressure, acceleration, and research integrity in the current research system. This approach can provide insights into the way in which researchers think about their own and others research practices, including their perceptions of the current reward and merit system and the effect this system is experienced to have on contemporary knowledge production. The analysis in the present paper draws on a vast and unique set of data from two completed focus group studies on research cultures and practices in relation to research integrity conditions, challenges, and needs. The secondary analysis performed is based on material from 36 focus group interviews across seven European countries, encompassing a total of 172 researchers. The first study aimed to study researcher perceptions and practices of questionable research practices (QRPs) across main research fields and across eight Danish Universities. The research fields comprised of the humanities, medical science, technical science, social science and natural science. The focus group study encompassed 22 focus groups with a total of 105 researchers, and it formed part of a nationally funded project on the ‘Practices, Perceptions, and Patters of Research Integrity’ (PRINT 2017-19). The main objective was to survey and explore the state and conditions of research practices, knowledge production and research integrity in Denmark. Table SI1 provides an overview of the groups according to distributed socio-demographic information (see Supplementary Information). Study findings and detailed information on methodology, including research design, sample- and recruitment strategy, have been reported in Ravn and Sørensen (2021). The second focus group study formed part of an EU funded project concerning ‘Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity’ (SOPs4RI 2019-2022). It aimed to examine and promote transformational research integrity processes through European research- and funding organisations. The study conducted 30 focus group interviews across eight European countries and aimed to explore how different research areas perceived and prioritised a variety of different research integrity topics related to research environments, collaborative research, RI breaches, among others, and of relevance to both research and funding organisations. Fourteen focus groups were comprised solely of researchers, while the remaining 16 focus groups included both researchers and relevant stakeholders. In the present study we only use material from the 14 focus group interviews with researchers. Table SI2 in Supplementary Information provides an overview of the 14 focus groups and the distribution of the 67 participants, who took part in these interviews, including research area, stakeholder representation and demographic characteristics. As in the first study, all main research areas were represented in this study (the humanities, social science, natural science incl. technical science and medical science, incl. biomedicine). Study findings and details on methods have been reported in Sørensen et al. (2021) and Sørensen et al. (2020). All focus groups transcripts from this study have been made publicly available in anonymised versions to allow for secondary analyses of the data and to promote open data access (https://osf.io/e9u8t/?view_only=). Authors MPS and TR led the design, execution, analysis, and reporting of the original studies. The extensive discussions in the 36 focus groups on promoting good research and integrity practices and procedures yielded numerous accounts of researchers lived experiences in academia and their perceptions of time and the research process, which we could not closely examine and report on in Ravn and Sørensen (2021) and Sørensen et al. (2021). These accounts include narratives, experiences and examples of navigating within contemporary academia across countries, institutions, research fields and disciplines, which individually and collectively shed light on the current reward and merit system in academia (cf. Introduction) and its experienced effects on contemporary knowledge production. The guiding research question for this new, secondary analysis has been: ‘ How do researchers across research fields and disciplines experience time pressure and acceleration within academia in relation to research quality and integrity ?’ All interview transcripts from the 36 focus groups have been re-coded in NVivo (by author ML), guided by the main research question and hence operationalised according to a number of sub-questions and a theoretically informed coding strategy (cf. ‘Theoretical frame’), which focused on a thematic across case comparison of the focus group data. While the coding strategy was informed by theories of acceleration in academia, the nature of the data supported an explorative and inductive approach, which allowed for emerging and cross-cutting topics of relevance for the secondary analysis. In the reporting of the two original studies, participants were pseudonymised (Ravn and Sørensen 2021; Sørensen et al. 2021; Sørensen et al. 2020) and references to participants after quotes presented only general information, such as type of representation, position, and gender without disclosing any identifying information. The same approach has been adopted in the reporting of the current analysis. Findings section: Time pressure, declining quality, and the rise of a new merit system In this section, we first look at the general time pressure that researchers experience in their daily work. We then focus on the experienced time pressure’s impact on, a) the quality of the research produced, and b) the quality assurance system within research. Hereafter, we look at additional research integrity problems – and a few advantages – observed by the interviewees in relation to time pressure and accelerated research processes. Next, the section turns to the experienced reasons for accelerated research processes, before drawing the contours of a new merit and reward system that according to the interviewees dominates contemporary academia and is experienced to be the root cause of many current quality and research integrity problems. Experienced time pressure Across the focus groups, interviewees expressed a feeling of working under intensifying time pressure in contemporary academia. Many felt they needed to perform more tasks today than previously and that the allocated time per task was too short. Interviewees reflected on experiences of time shortage and its impact on research from multiple angles. Related to research they, for example, expressed having too little time to read, to collect new data, to conduct in-depth analysis, to comply with relevant regulations, to observe due diligence, and to supervise and mentor. To simply find the time to do research was difficult for many of the researchers. Below, we will explore the different forms of time pressure experienced by researchers in relation to the different phases of the research process. However, before we examine the different research phases, it should be noted that the interviewees generally experienced a considerable mismatch between expectations and the time available to carry out set tasks. The clashing of research and teaching time as well as research and application time especially stood out in the interviews. Writing applications and teaching often steal time away from research, as illustrated in this quote by a Danish female assistant professor within the social sciences (translated by authors): Interviewee: “Yeah, so we have two and a half hours of preparation time for a one-hour lecture, right? And I really think so - I spend an enormous amount of research time preparing lessons, and I don’t think I’m the only one who does that.” Interviewer: “So when do you do research?” Interviewee: “Well, Sunday evenings (mild laughter).” Whenever there is a conflict of time between tasks, research seems to have to give way to the other tasks. As an interviewee on a temporary contract explains: “I've been teaching actually for a couple of years now and I've had no time for publishing, so I am actually now waiting for my third contract to run out so that I'll have this obligatory time off to actually do the writing and then hope to get a position somewhere.” (Lecturer, humanities, the Netherlands). However, even though many of the interviewees experienced having very limited time available to do research and write papers, they still felt they had to publish “a lot” to stay in academia: “ […] so that's also what you’ll be measured on next time you have to have a position: How many articles has she published?” (Postdoc, natural science, female, Denmark, translated by authors) Time pressure and declining quality in the production of knowledge Across disciplinary fields and countries, the focus group participants express a feeling of being under double pressure. On the one side they feel they must carry out more tasks today than before, and that they have less time for each task compared to earlier. They especially experience a lack of time to do research, and to do it as thoroughly as they would like to. On the other side, they at the same time experience high publication pressure; a feeling of having to publish more than previously to make it in academia (to get grants, a permanent position, or promotions). The experienced double-pressure leads to a general feeling of lacking time to live up to norms on good research practices within the researchers’ different fields, which is perceived to harm the quality of the research produced. The pressure to publish is in general experienced to prioritize quantity over quality. Detrimental effects on research quality are observed across the entire research process by the interviewees. To shed more light on this, we will use an analytical model for the research process encompassing five phases (cf. Ravn and Sørensen, 2021): the idea generation phase , research design phase , data collection phase , data analysis phase , and research publication and reporting phase . In the idea generation phase , interviewees state that they lack time to come up with new ideas, and that it is safer for them to reuse old ideas. They likewise feel they have too little time to read the existing literature before they start a new project: ““[…] when you are under a lot of pressure, as we all are due to a large workload, then there is a tendency for people not to have enough time to read the literature within the field properly.” (Professor, humanities, female, Denmark, translation by authors). This is experienced to lead to too identical studies with too small contributions that do not bring a field forward. In the research design phase , interviewees point out that time pressure leads to fewer ‘high risk, high gain’ studies: “The worst problem with all this publishing pressure is all the stuff that doesn’t get done. We don’t choose a research area with high risk, because we know too well that there is not much chance of the t-statistics becoming significant.” (Associate professor, social science, male, Denmark, translation by authors). The experienced publication pressure thus creates a feeling of not having time to pursue riskier research areas, i.e., areas with more uncertainty where one risks ending up with negative results that will be difficult to get published. Further, interviewees – like e.g., this Danish humanities scholar (professor, male) – express a feeling of not having time to use more advanced or ambitious methods (translated by authors): “Interviewee: I love doing these long historical analyses, but it is extremely time-consuming. You have to sit and rummage around in various archives and so on. There is no time for that. So what it ends up with often is that I look at what others have done of historical analyses and then I start to cannibalize a bit on this. And sometimes I work from there and find some data myself, right? But sometimes I end up doing a reinterpretation of the historical analyses, and see them in a different light, right? Sometimes I add a few additional sources, instead of starting from scratch myself. I definitely don’t have time for that. Interviewer: It makes for poorer research? Interviewee: I think so. In any case, it does not produce the research with originality that could have been done if I had had the time to do it.” Like this scholar, many interviewees express a feeling of not having enough time to collect the most relevant data during the data collection-phase . Because of the perceived pressure to publish, which is experienced to stem from institutions’ bibliometric point systems and from career related competition, data collection risks becoming an activity where researchers think more about time issues than about collecting the most optimal data for a given research project: “There, I mostly just think that I have to get those points [for the bibliometric assessment system used in this institution], and how can I do that most easily - meaning, how can I get as much as possible as fast as possible, what kind of data can I most easily access? Instead of thinking I have to do field work for three months in [name of place] again, I don't have time for that at all. […] Then you think creatively that way, and it is not necessarily questionable research, because it can be both real and valid. But you think in a different way, because there is this [name of bibliometric assessment system …]. For me, it affects what I study.” (Assistant professor, humanities, female, Denmark, translated by authors) Career considerations – competition for grants, positions, and promotions – more than research quality considerations seem to dictate the perception of how much time one can afford to use on data collection. In a focus group within clinical-translational medicine, an interviewee describes his experience of a speeded up contemporary research culture by talking about a younger colleague’s reaction to a story about a clinician, who used four years on collecting data for a study. The young colleague’s reaction to the story is also a perfect example of what Müller (2014) calls ‘anticipatory acceleration’. According to the interviewee, the young colleague said: “Shit, he [the clinician] must be stupid. Spending so much time collecting that data to be able to write those two articles. That’s completely crazy. Over here, we can do this and that and that, and then we have 10 articles. And if you haven't done that, then you're already behind from the start […]” (Associate professor, medical science, male, Denmark, translated by authors). In the data analysis-phase interviewees likewise point to multiple examples of suboptimal research processes, due to lack of resources and a feeling of time pressure and competition: “[…] the vast majority of research groups do not have the resources to really check things through and to spend too much time on it, and some of the groups that do really well do so precisely because they don't […]” (Associate professor, medical science, male, Denmark, translated by authors). In individual projects, career considerations is perceived to be the primary reason for using suboptimal processes together with the organization of research – the projectification of research (Ylijoki, 2015) – which means that one has a fixed number of years to do a research project, e.g. a PhD project, and not the time it takes to do the research, including thoroughly checking one’s results: “But what I have experienced myself and around me is that there is sort of a time pressure especially when your PhD contract is almost finished. So, maybe at some point, you don't do this extra analysis, you don't extra check these outputs. And so, I feel like maybe it's the risk in my case or around me is more like sloppiness a little bit. Because you just want to be very efficient with your time.” (Postdoc, medical science, female, the Netherlands). To use Ylijoki’s (2015) terminology, the interviewee points to a mismatch between project time (finishing on time) and process time (doing the extra checks and analyses) and like most interviewees in our study clearly feels that project time trumps process time whenever there is a conflict between them. Finally, if we look at the publication and reporting-phase interviewees here feel they have too little coherent time for writing. Lack of time for writing leads to the speeding up of the process, resulting in a lack of finesse in the form – such as style of writing – to a more profound impact on the content of a given publication. This is also the case in collaborative projects, where it can be hard to find the time to thoroughly discuss and combine the different parts of a publication before it is submitted: “It becomes more like that we just share the work, "you do this, you do that", and then we put it together, and then of course we all read it through. And then it's often the case that it takes off in three different directions, because we didn't have time to sit down and thoroughly discuss the concepts and how to do it.” (Professor, humanities, female, Denmark, translated by authors). Time pressure and the declining quality of the quality assurance system As the previous subsection shows, there is a feeling among the interviewees that the quality of the research produced is harmed by the time pressure they experience. However, time pressure not only diminishes the quality of the research produced; it also harms academia’s quality assurance system , not least the peer review system. One interviewee, who is also a journal editor, describes the development in this way: “I'm an editor for a couple of journals, and to me it's very difficult to find good reviewers, even to find reviewers, is very difficult because people think that this is a waste of time, or some people think that this is a waste of time, and they prefer to work on their own studies, ignoring that the peer review process is the basis of the system, is the way science works. And also in the way the reviewers look at the papers, sometimes there is clear conflict of interest that editors not always deal with. Uhm and the quality of reviews is not always the quality that you should expect.” (Senior researcher, natural science, male, Spain). Some senior academics deal with the time pressure related to peer review by accepting review tasks but passing them on to one of their PhD students or postdocs. In some cases, senior researchers take the time to talk to their younger colleagues about the strengths and weaknesses of a paper, in other cases they just let the PhD-students do the reviews without any guidance. In general, time pressure can also lead to insufficient supervision of PhD students. For competition and prestige reasons, the number of PhD students that some senior academics supervise is increasing with potential negative impact on the supervision of the students. Interviewees describe how the lack of time for prober supervision leads to PhD-students submitting substandard papers to journals and conferences. The lack of time to do thorough reviews of PhD students’ research and to do in-depth journal peer reviews also applies for the work that goes on in the hiring and appointing system within academia. When applicants submit papers as part of an application, assessment committee members do not always have time to read the papers. Instead, they rely on metrics despite knowing that this is a suboptimal way of evaluating researchers’ work: “And if I'm in a panel of reviewing some applications or something like that, I do get credited a little bit of money, but I have so little time to do it, I mean, it's just not. And that's the reason why we end up focusing on these index numbers, which is bullshit of course.” (Associate professor, natural science, male, Denmark) Finally, when researchers notice that there might be integrity problems in the work of peers, they for time reasons do not always react to this. When they do, it is experienced to be very time consuming: “Everybody forgets how time consuming it is to prove misconduct. It takes months of work.” (Senior researcher, medical science, male, Greece). Further experienced impact on research integrity When listening to the interviewees in our study, there is no doubt that accelerated research processes and time pressure in general are experienced to harm research integrity. Researchers across disciplinary fields find it hard to live up to norms of good research practices because of time pressure and speeded up research processes. Although, as we shall see below, the current system also leads to changes in practice that can be beneficial to research integrity, the main narrative emerging in our study is that time pressure and accelerated research processes are detrimental to research integrity. Some interviewees even couple these processes directly to the use of QRPs or at least point out that QRPs become more attractive in a system focusing on speed and with high publication pressure: “I’m afraid we work in a very high-tension field, and everybody is forced to publish as quickly as possible to become eligible for the grants, and yeah I'm afraid this is where integrity becomes damaged […] Yeah, p-hacking, and I guess really people would be tempted to go into the grey area. Maybe not outright fraud, but: ‘Can I remove an outlier still?, Can I test this in another way?, or coming up with hypotheses after the data has been gathered” (Assistant professor, social science, male, the Netherlands). Time pressure might tempt some researchers to manipulate their analyses to show stronger positive effects, to ensure the publication is published and avoid the loss of time that would result from a failure to publish: “(…) you cannot publish anything which doesn’t show effect, or something. So, in order to get publications which are necessary, and because they're an indicator of your performance, there is a really strong incentive, in my opinion, for scientific misconduct, for faking data …” (Senior researcher, social sciences, male, Germany). The current merit system is also understood to encourage researchers to publish small and insignificant papers: ““[…] we are flooded with publications that don’t matter to anyone.” (Associate professor, natural science, male, Denmark). The pressure to publish is experienced to lead to an overproduction of publications with very limited contribution or novelty: “One basically produces ten times too many or 50 times too many articles. [...] They are just too close to each other. There is too little new.” (Associate professor, natural science, male, Denmark, translation by authors). Unfair assignments of authorships and authorship conflicts also seem to flourish in this system. The strong focus on quantity and researchers’ need to boost their publication lists turn authorship discussions into a form of gift economy: “[…] there is a clear tendency of people saying implicitly that ‘if you put me on your paper, I'll put you on my paper’, and then you see these papers with 10 or 15 authors, and essentially there is one who has done all the work, and the rest is just on for the ride. The problem is […] whoever has the most publications win and we need to break that, otherwise things are gonna move in a really bad direction.” (Associate professor, natural science, male, Denmark) Authorships are used as a form of currency that can repay old favors or make collaborations run more smoothly: “[…] we depend on the [name of] departments […] and sometimes that means that you add an author to a paper where the contribution is a bit, uhm, less than five percent […]” (Associate Professor, medical science, female, Denmark). However, as mentioned above, besides the main narrative – that time pressure and speeded up knowledge production processes are bad for research integrity – a side story also emerged in the interviews. Some focus group participants from the humanities as well as the natural sciences expressed that besides the detrimental aspects of this development, there were also some positive elements. These views emerged during discussions on increasing publication rates, the peer review process, and pressure to publish at different career stages. For example, a natural science researcher pointed out that the increased focus on publications had given PhD students the opportunity to learn how to write papers and to practice their writing skills. In the humanities, several scholars pointed out that the development from writing articles and books in national languages to focusing more on international journal articles – stimulated by new bibliometric-focused research assessment systems – had led to more widespread use of peer review within the humanities, which again was perceived to have led to improvements in the overall quality of publications within different fields within the humanities: “I would say that, on the one hand, there is a tendency to proceed quickly and produce as much as possible, […] But it is also within the past ten years that peer review has become more common with us, compared to what it used to be. It has also led to an increase in quality, whereas some things that would have slipped through in the past, now these are weeded out” (Associate professor, humanities, male, Denmark). The experienced reasons for the increased time pressure But what then is causing this dominating feeling of time pressure in relation to research tasks? As already mentioned, teaching is by many interviewees perceived to take up more time than what is allocated to it and in this way, it eats up research time. As the university’s dependence on external funding increases, researchers now also have to spend more time applying for grants than before: “[…] less time is actually spent on the actual research and more on writing applications and the competition we all know is getting harder and harder.” (Associate professor, humanities, female, Denmark). The combination of increasing demands for external funding and decreasing success rates puts extra pressure on researchers’ time. However, winning a grant does not necessarily take off pressure and provide more time for the single steps in the research process. To the contrary, winning a grant might lead to even more time pressure: “In order to get proposals accepted, you have to promise to do more than you actually think you can achieve.” (Postdoc, technical science, male, Denmark, translation by authors). Especially early career researchers seem to be under a great deal of pressure to get the right grants to be able to move on in the research system: “[…] when you finish your PhD, it's ‘make it or break it’, […] then you have two years to create the results or the CV that will get you the job, because there are fewer and fewer grants to apply for when you get a little further [into the postdoc period].” (Associate professor, natural science, male, Denmark, translated by authors). If they are successful in getting a grant, pressure then comes from getting the results they promised in the application: “[…] if you are a young group leader, this does not only apply to Denmark, it applies to the whole world, then you are typically hired on some interesting hypothesis, or some other interesting concept, and then it has to work, that is, if it doesn’t work […] then it is almost over for you.” (Associate professor, medical science, male, Denmark, translation by authors). When listening to the interviewees, it becomes clear that time pressure is closely linked to competition , i.e., that competition for grants, positions, and promotions lead to ‘anticipatory acceleration’ (Müller 2014) and an experience of time pressure. As one of the interviewees explain: “as soon as you become a PhD it’s not nice but you're competing with your colleagues, you're competing with the other PhDs because there's only going to be so many assistant professor positions, and after assistant professor there are only so many in the tracks, so I think the pressure with us is very real.” (Assistant professor, social science, male, the Netherlands). The career system is further tied to a general projectification (Ylijoko, 2015) of academic work, including research: “To me, that's where the pressure lies. It's in how quickly you have to get things out. Also, because there... Now again, I think it is very typical for research careers that there are many projects, both project assignments and that things are generally very project-driven, where there is a clear deadline for when things must be finished. That might put extra pressure on top.” (Associate professor, humanities, male, Denmark, translation by authors). The project format has thus become a standard modus operandi in academia (Ylijoko, 2015; Felt, 2017). At the point of conception, studies are subject to accommodating the project format, hinged to fixed timelines, predictability of findings, the feasibility of positive results, and inflexibility of research design. Working in project-related temporary positions also means you always need to have your next position in mind. In this way, one’s current research practice becomes – at least partly – shaped by one’s perception of what will secure one’s next position. The current reward and merit system As we have seen in the quotes above, interviewees express a clear understanding of what counts in the current merit and reward system in academia. Interviewees’ understanding of this system was remarkably homogeneous across the 36 focus group interviews, i.e., across interviewees’ seniority, disciplinary and national backgrounds, so much so that we on this basis will attempt to draw the contours of the dominating contemporary reward and merit system in academia. It’s important to emphasise that this is the system as it looks through the eyes of the interviewees or rather as it shows itself in the narratives of the interviewed researchers in our study. It can be understood as a form of ideal type (Weber, 1949) system that in its purest form probably does not exist anywhere. Nevertheless, it can help us understand where the pressure on research quality, described above, is perceived to come from. The system, which could be termed ‘the quantitative assessment system’, is summarised in Table 1 . The left side of the table represents the dominating way of thinking about the current reward and merit system among the focus group participants – ‘the quantitative assessment system’ – and the right side represents the contrast to this system, ‘the qualitative assessment system’. The elements on the right side are a mix of interviewees’ wishes for how it ought to be and stories of how it used to be, e.g., that there used to be more room for being thorough and to be able to wait with publications until one had substantial results, as e.g. expressed by this interviewee: "... to some extent, we compromise all the time [in relation to the depth of the research carried out and to publications]. […] we might think that this is not a problem we will get to the bottom of, and perhaps in the old days we would have said, ‘Well, I'll continue with this for 20 years until I can deliver a thesis of 100 pages or more, and then I've sort of answered this question.’ No, now when you've got some data and you think you have enough for a publication, off it goes...” (Associate professor, natural science, male, Denmark, translation by authors). Table 1. Two ideal type reward and merit systems Ideal type 1: The quantitative assessment system This is the current system, which according to the interviewees rewards and/or encourage: Ideal type 2: The qualitative assessment system This is the system as it ought to be or was in the past, according to the interviewees. It rewards and/or encourage: Quantity Quality Projectification and focus on ‘project time’ Room for ‘process time’ Papers Books and more comprehensive papers Incremental steps (salami slicing) Substantial contribution (giving full accounts of findings in publications) Playing it safe (knowing that you will get results) Taking risks (blue ocean, basic research) Copying and reusing ideas, approaches, designs, data, etc. Originality, advanced methods, and time to do extra data collection To be fast To be thorough Strategic thinking (related to career) Joy of work To publish as much as possible and as soon as you have first results To publish when you have substantial results More authors per paper More strict interpretations of what it takes to be a co-author Focus on writing and output Focus on reading and process Knowledge production as a means to an end (points in an assessment system, individual careers, new grants, solve pre-defined problems etc.) Knowledge production as a goal in itself (enlightenment, deepening our understanding of Nature and the world etc.) Ideal type researcher: The successful head of a lab or research unit, who is constantly applying for new grants and who gets his name on all papers from that unit by just reading and commenting on them. Ideal type researcher: the Nobel prize laurate, who pursued a bold idea that nobody believed in, and who via basic funding from the university spent decades to study a problem (Jens Christian Skou) These stories of how it used to be resemble what Ylijoki (2005) calls academic nostalgia and Felt (2017) refers to as a golden past , “when there was still time to think, when there was virtually no talk of careers and strategic planning, when research was not necessarily tied to finding a format that fitted the project logic, and when speed and efficiency were not the primary concerns” (p.2). Interviewees do not seem to believe that this was how it really was in the old days, but they use these descriptions to point out what current academia is not . Even more than the contemporary system, these counterexamples must therefore likewise be understood as an ideal type that has never existed in a pure form anywhere. The contemporary reward and merit system can – as an ideal type – be summarised as a system that prioritises quantity to quality: the more papers and grants you have, the better you will do in the current system. This encourages strategic thinking and ‘playing it safe’. As a researcher you need to know that you will end up with publishable results before you start a research process. Otherwise, you jeopardize your career. In the present system, knowledge production becomes a means to an end. Research is carried out to get points in an assessment system, to benefit individual careers, to get new grants, and to solve pre-defined problems that the researcher knows can be solved. In this system, researchers are rewarded for reusing data, approaches, designs, ideas etc. Speed and to publish as much as possible as soon as possible is prioritised. Instead of collecting more data, doing a more comprehensive analysis, or getting a fuller picture of what is going on, the system encourages researchers to publish as soon as they have first results. In this system, the number of co-authors also increases because of the focus on number of papers: the more co-authors, the more papers the individual researcher “can produce”, and the better he or she will stand in the competition. The ideal researcher in this merit and reward system is the successful head of a department or lab, who constantly has an eye out for new funding opportunities and who gets his name on all the papers from the research unit by simply reading and commenting on paper drafts. The counterexample, mentioned in one of the Danish focus groups, is the Nobel laurate, physiologist Jens Christian Skou (1918-2018) from Aarhus University, who got the Nobel prize in Chemistry in 1997. Skou said on many occasions that he would never have been able to do the research that led to the Nobel prize – awarded for the discovery of the sodium-potassium pump – in the current system: “When I claimed that an enzyme could transport ions, people said I was talking nonsense. I would never have been given the funding to investigate this under the current system." (Jespersgaard, 2018). Discussion An important finding in our study – one that also supports the research assessment reform movement’s call for a change in the way we assess research and researchers (cf. ‘Introduction’) – is the detrimental effect that the current merit and reward system is experienced to have on scientific progress and the quality of our combined knowledge production. Like Edwards and Roy ( 2017 ), we find that problems with robustness and lack of reproducibility of scientific results (see e.g. Ioannidis, 2005 ; Baker, 2016 ; Resnik & Shamoo, 2017 ) are intimately related to the current reward and merit system in academia. As the interviewees in our study pointed out, quality and integrity do not count to the same extent as quantity and speed in the current system. As already pointed out in the Introduction, there seems to be a system failure in the current merit and reward system, which means that behaviour that benefits the quality of the research produced – that makes research more robust and trustworthy – at the same time can be harmful for the career of the individual researcher (cf. Aubert Bonn and Pinxten 2021 ). Seen from a researchers’ point of view, this system failure means that it becomes irrational for the individual researcher to go the extra mile to make their results more robust by, e.g., collecting additional data or run extra tests. Despite this system failure, the interviewed researchers still seemed to care about the quality of the research they produced. They were conscious of acceptable standards and in many cases went far in trying to find the necessary time to fulfil the experienced higher demands for publications while at the same time making sure that their research lived up to acceptable quality standards. This was, e.g., done by stealing time away from themselves and their families (leisure time, family time) to make sure they had enough ‘process time’ for their research. However, the interviewees were likewise very aware that researchers, who prioritise quality and integrity risk losing out to researchers, who prioritise quantity and speed in the current reward and merit system. It can of course be discussed if this actually also is the case. If funding bodies and hiring committees in fact follow what we above called ‘the quantitative assessment system’ and put more weight on quantity and speed than quality and integrity when they make decisions. However, no matter if this is the case or not, the mere perception among researchers of this being the case might have an impact on the way research is produced by influencing researchers’ behaviour. Studies have shown that only a few percentages of researchers engage in the most serious forms of scientific misconduct – fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) – but that questionable research practices (QRPs) are much more widespread and largely responsible for the quality problems we are facing in contemporary knowledge production (Steneck, 2006 ; Fanelli, 2009 ; John et al., 2012 ; Anderson et al., 2013 ; Bouter et al. 2016 ; Ravn and Sørensen, 2021 ; Gopalakrishna et al. 2022 ; Schneider et al. 2023 ). Recent surveys likewise show that researchers’ perception of the pressure they are under to publish and attract external funding is positively correlated with their self-reported use of QRPs (Schneider et al. 2023 ; Gopalakrishna et al. 2022 ). Based on our findings, the attractiveness and widespread use of QRPs can be understood in relation to their capacity to accelerate the research process and shorten the time needed to get from research ideas to publications. For individual researchers and research groups this can be attractive and might even be seen as necessary in a highly competitive research system (cf. also Edwards and Roy’s, 2017, discussion of ‘perverse incentives’ in a ‘hyper-competitive’ science system). Different QRPs are used for accelerating research processes in different main areas of research (cf. Ravn and Sørensen 2021 ). Examples include deselecting time-demanding methods and not doing sufficient controls and validations of results. Such practices enable individual researchers or groups to progress from idea generation to final publication more rapidly. However, as we have heard from researchers in the present study, increased speed often comes at a cost. Research conducted through accelerated practices can lack originality and robustness and it might therefore contribute little of value to our collective knowledge. Thus, while such QRPs may help individual researchers achieve personal goals faster, they risk slowing down progress in our collective knowledge production process and thereby ending up wasting (collective) time and resources. Conclusion By way of a secondary analysis of 36 focus group interviews across seven European countries in which 172 researchers took part, we found that researchers across countries, disciplines, gender, and seniority paint a strikingly similar picture of the current reward and merit system in academia. This picture is in line with the one painted by the ‘research assessment reform movement’ (DORA, CoARA etc.). According to the interviewees, the current system rewards speed and quantity , i.e. to produce as many results, papers, citations etc. as fast as possible, at the expense of focusing on quality and integrity in the research process. In doing this, the current system is perceived to harm the robustness of the knowledge produced in contemporary academia. The findings in our study are thus in line with previous studies by Aubert Bonn and Pinxten ( 2021 ) and Edwards and Roy ( 2017 ). However, by giving more space to the voices of researchers than previous studies have done, our study offers a deeper understanding of researchers’ perception of the current assessment system. Further, the study’s findings and analysis offer a new understanding of QRPs. The study suggests understanding the widespread use of QRPs not just in relation to the current reward and merit system, but equally important in relation to a general feeling of acceleration in academia. It seems to be the toxic combination of the current quantitative assessment system and the perceived acceleration of academic work that make QRPs attractive for some researchers. Diminishing the use of QRPs would require changing these researchers’ perception of what matters in academia. As our findings show, this would require that academia move in the direction of a more qualitative research assessment system. Our findings and analysis thus also support the research assessment reform movement’s efforts to change the current system and find a better balance between quantity and speed on the one side and quality and integrity on the other side. Declarations Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the 172 interviewees for their time and for sharing their views with us. The authors also wish to thank fellow focus group co-investigators in the SOPs4RI project: Anna-Kathrine Bendtsen, Ana Marušić, Rea Roja, Panagiotis Kavouras, Krishma Labib, Joeri K. Tijdink, Giuseppe A. Veltri, Andrea Reyes Elizondo, Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner and Josephine Bergmans as well as colleagues in the PRINT project, especially Jesper W. Schneider (PI), Niels Mejlgaard and Kaare Aagaard. Further, we would like to thank Serge Horbach, Lise Degn, Rachel Fishberg and Sven Arend Ulpts, who offered valuable comments to an early version of this paper. Funding The PRINT project (Practices, Perceptions, and Patterns of Research Integrity) was funded by the Danish Agency for Higher Education and Science (Ministry of Higher Education and Science) under Grant No 6183-00001B. The SOPs4RI project was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 824481. Ethical approval Ethical approval for the focus group interviews in the SOPs4RI project was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee at Aarhus University (ref. no 2019-0015957). In addition, a national approval was obtained in Croatia. There is no ethical approval of the focus group study in the PRINT project (this is in accordance with Danish standards. In Denmark, it is not mandatory to have ethical approvals of social science studies with adults like e.g. researchers). Informed consent For the SOPs4RI study, written informed consent forms were signed by all interviewees before the interviews. For the PRINT project, oral consent was given and recorded on tape and video at the beginning of the interviews by all interviewees. Contribution - CReDIt information Mads P. Sørensen : Conceptualisation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & Editing, Supervision, Project administration . Marina Lambert : Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – original draft Tine Ravn : Methodology, Investigation, Validation, Writing – original draft. References Aubert Bonn N, Pinxten W (2021) Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers’ opinions on success indicators. PLOS ONE 16(2): e0243664. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243664 Anderson, M.S., Shaw, M.A., Steneck, N.H., Konkle, E., & Kamata, T. (2013). Research Integrity and Misconduct in the Academic Profession. In M. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research , vol. 28. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5836-0_5 Baker, M., 2016. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Survey sheds light on the “crisis” rocking research. Nature, 533, pp. 452-454. Bouter, L.M., et al. (2016). Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1(17). CoARA (2024a). Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, https://coara.eu/app/uploads/2022/09/2022_07_19_rra_agreement_final.pdf CoARA, (2024b). https://coara.eu/agreement/signatories/ Curry, S., de Rijcke, S., Hatch, A., Pillay, D., van der Weijden, I. and Wilsdon, J. (2020) The changing role of funders in responsible research assessment: progress, obstacles & the way ahead. RoRI. Working Paper No. 3., November 2020. DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.13227914 DORA (2024a). The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) https://sfdora.org/read/ DORA (2024b). https://sfdora.org/signers/ Edwards, M.A., Roy, S. (2017) Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science , 2017. 34(1): 51-61. Fanelli, D. (2009). How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE, 4(5). Felt U (2017) Of time-scapes and knowledge-scapes: Re-timing research and higher education. In: Scott P, Gallacher J and Parry G (eds) New Landscapes and Languages of Higher Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 129–148. Gopalakrishna G, ter Riet G, Vink G, Stoop I, Wicherts JM, Bouter LM (2022) Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PLoS ONE 17(2): e0263023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023 Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L. et al. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520 , 429–431 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a Ioannidis, J.P.A., 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoSMed 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. Jespersgaard, 2018: https://newsroom.au.dk/en/news/show/artikel/obituary-a-researcher-with-all-his-heart/ John, L.K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices with Incentives for Truth Telling. Psychological Science, 23 (5), 524–532. Moher D, Bouter L, Kleinert S, Glasziou P, Sham MH, Barbour V, et al. (2020) The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS Biol 18(7): e3000737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737 Müller R: "Racing for What? Anticipation and Acceleration in the Work and Career Practices of Academic Life Science Postdocs". Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2014; 15(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-15.3.2245 Ravn T., Sørensen M.P. (2021) Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research. Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Jun 16;27(4):40. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00310-z. PMID: 34136962. Resnik D.B., Shamoo, A.E. (2017). Reproducibility and research integrity. Accountability in Research, 24(2), pp. 116-123. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2016.1257387 Rosa H (2010) Alienation and Acceleration: Towards a Critical Theory of Late-Modern Temporality , Malmo: NSU Press. Rosa H (2013) Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity (Translated by J Trejo-Mathys). New York: Columbia University Press. Rushforth A., Hammarfelt, B. (2024). The rise of responsible metrics as a professional reform movement: A collective action frames account. Quantitative Science Studies 2024; doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00280 Schneider, J. W., Allum, N., Andersen, J. P., Petersen, M., Mejlgaard, N., & Zachariae, R. (2023, September 13). Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Cross-national evidence for widespread involvement but not systematic use of questionable research practices across all fields of research. MetaArXiv Preprints https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/r6j3z Sørensen M.P., Ravn T., Bendtsen A-K., Reyes Elizondo, A., Kaltenbrunner, W., Ščepanović, R., Marušić, A., Kavouras, P., Labib, K., Tijdink, J., Veltri, G-A., Bergmans, J. (2020) D5.2: Report on the results of the focus group interviews. file:///C:/Users/au5196/Downloads/D5.2_Report-on-the-Results-of-the-Focus-Group-Interviews-2-4.pdf Accessed 14 Feb 2024. Sørensen, M.P., Ravn, T., Marušić, A. et al. (2021) Strengthening research integrity: which topic areas should organisations focus on?. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8, 198 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00874-y Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74. Vostal, F. (2015). Academic life in the fast lane: The experience of time and speed in British academia. Time & Society, 24(1), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X13517537 Vostal, F., Benda, L., & Virtová, T. (2019). Against reductionism: On the complexity of scientific temporality. Time & Society, 28(2), 783–803. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X17752281 Ylijoki O-H, Mäntylä H (2003) Conflicting time perspectives in academic work. Time & Society 12(1): 55–78. Ylijoki O-H. (2015). Conquered by project time? Conflicting temporalities in university research. In: Gibbs P, Ylijoki O-H, Guzmán-Valenzuela C (eds) Universities in the Flux of Time. An Exploration of Time and Temporality in University Life, London: Routledge, pp. 94–107. Weber, M. (1949): “Objectivity” in Social Science and Social Policy, in: Max Weber On The Methodology of the Social Sciences , Trans. and Eds. By Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch. Forward by Edward A. Shils. The Free Press of Glencoe, Illinois. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files SupplementaryInformation.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4467477","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":305998080,"identity":"4b8877bf-cb9c-4b50-9b73-47a3addc8f3c","order_by":0,"name":"Mads P. Sørensen","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2455-2515","institution":"Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mads","middleName":"P.","lastName":"Sørensen","suffix":""},{"id":305998081,"identity":"4d83f34a-e76a-40e4-9afb-c71463dda913","order_by":1,"name":"Marina Lambert","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Danish Centre for studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marina","middleName":"","lastName":"Lambert","suffix":""},{"id":305998082,"identity":"d4798e95-d005-4f56-bf4e-441b951656e3","order_by":2,"name":"Tine Ravn","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Danish Centre for studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tine","middleName":"","lastName":"Ravn","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-05-23 14:21:45","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4467477/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4467477/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":57061831,"identity":"29b3fca0-92ea-4385-a373-ae0c5231872f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-24 06:21:01","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":600379,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4467477/v1/8c3259eb-2d43-445c-9f0f-f8c9a99ad41d.pdf"},{"id":57061336,"identity":"ed1ef721-18fb-4b8a-891f-22962b74dad4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-24 06:13:00","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":31926,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryInformation.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4467477/v1/15e80880fb64d68499ebfdf1.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e“Whoever has the most publications win”: time pressure, accelerated research processes and research integrity in contemporary academia\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eDuring the last 15 years a reform movement to change the way research and researchers are assessed has developed (Rushforth and Hammarfelt 2024). This research assessment reform movement consist of a broad alliance of researchers, institutions, and research reform organisations and initiatives (see e.g. Curry et al. 2020). One common feature of the movement is its recommendation to research institutions, funders, and academics to put less emphasise on quantitative metrics and more emphasis on qualitative peer reviews, when performing research assessments. The core documents of the movement include The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) created by the American Society for Cell Biology, following a conference in San Francisco in 2012 (DORA 2024a). The DORA declaration stresses the importance of moving away from journal-based metrics, such as the Journal Impact Factor, when assessing the quality of research, and has been signed by 24,553 individuals and organizations in 165 countries by February 2024 (DORA 2024b). The Leiden Manifesto, which lists 10 principles for more responsible research assessments, is another important document for the movement (Hicks et al. 2015). A third central document is the Hong Kong principles created in relation to the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) in Hong Kong in 2019 (Moher et al. 2020). It especially underlines the importance of looking at the quality of the research process when doing assessments. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn general, the research assessment reform movement has been successful in putting the need for reforms on the policy agenda. The best example of this is the newly (2022) formed Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), which is connected to the European Research Area (ERA), i.e. the European Union’s (EU) attempt to create a single, borderless market for research, innovation, and technology. Research institutions can join CoARA by signing the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment (CoARA, 2024a). So far (February 2024), 688 research performing organisations and funders have done this (CoARA, 2024b). They commit to actively and constructively reform research assessment practices, which include recognising that research assessments primarily must be based on “qualitative judgement, for which peer review is central” and only should be supported by quantitative indicators when this can be done in a responsible way (CoARA, 2024a p.2). Another fundamental principle in the Agreement is to “Comply with ethics and integrity rules and practices, and ensure that ethics and integrity are the highest priority, never compromised by any counter-incentives.” (CoARA, 2024a, p.3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, as we shall see in this article, there is still a long way to go before this becomes standard assessment practices for funders and research institutions. The 172 researchers, who took part in our study, are far from convinced that they will be assessed on the basis of the \u003cem\u003equality\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eintegrity\u003c/em\u003e of the research process or by qualitative judgements of their complete portfolio. To the contrary, to be able to compete for funding and positions, researchers experience they need to prioritise quantity over quality, speed over thoroughness, and to publish as soon as they have first findings instead of waiting until they have more robust results. Across differences (countries, disciplines, gender and seniority), there is a shared feeling among the interviewees that ‘whoever has the most publications win’, and not ‘whoever was most thorough and paid most attention to quality during the research process’ gets the grants and positions. The reason for this is what we will call a\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;system failure\u003c/em\u003e in the reward and merit system of academia. This failure means that academia encourages and rewards individual research behaviour that at the same time jeopardizes the quality of the knowledge produced. Put differently, what benefits thoroughness in the research process and provide reliable and robust research results often does not benefit individual researchers’ careers as pointed out by Aubert Bonn and Pinxten (2021).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings and analyses presented in this paper is based on a secondary analysis of thirty-six focus group interviews conducted with researchers in seven European countries as part of two research integrity projects (see Methods section below for more details). We re-examined the focus group interviews to gain a deeper understanding of the current research culture and to better understand the conditions of opportunity for good research practices in contemporary academia. We do this through an analysis of the narratives of the interviewees. Narratives are important, because they – as Felt has put it – guide researchers by tacitly defining “the horizons of possible and acceptable action” (Felt, 2017, p.143).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTheoretically, our study is inspired by Hartmut Rosa’s theory of acceleration in modern societies (Rosa, 2010, 2013) as well as by scholarly work on acceleration-related change in the academy (Ylijoki and Mäntylä, 2003; Ylijoki, 2015; Vostal, 2015, Vostal et al., 2019; Müller, 2014; Felt, 2017). We wanted to know more about researchers’ perception and experiences of acceleration and the current reward and merit system in academia – and the related impact these perceptions and experiences have on research integrity and the quality of the research work. The re-coding and re-analysis of the interviews, accordingly, focussed on issues related to acceleration, time (pressure), and research integrity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe article unfolds as follows. \u003cem\u003eFirst\u003c/em\u003e, we present the theoretical framework that inspired our study. \u003cem\u003eSecond\u003c/em\u003e, we present the methods used and our analytical strategy. \u003cem\u003eThird\u003c/em\u003e, we present our findings, focussing on researchers’ experience of time pressure, the way they see time pressure impacting on the research process and the quality assurance system within research. We further examine researchers’ perception of the causes for the time pressure they experience before we based on the findings draw the contours of the contemporary reward and merit system in research. \u003cem\u003eFourth\u003c/em\u003e, we discuss our findings in relation to studies on research misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs), before we summarise our findings and analysis in a conclusion.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eTheoretical frame\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne of the most interesting and influential contemporary theories on modernity – on what characterises and drives modern societies – is the German sociologist Hartmut Rosa’s theory on acceleration (2010, 2013). According to Rosa, modern societies are characterised by an historically unprecedented increase in the speed of technological and social change that also accelerate the ‘pace of life’. \u003cem\u003eCompetition\u003c/em\u003e is a central concept in Rosa’s theory. It is to him the driving force behind the technological, social and ‘pace of life’ acceleration we experience (2010, pp. 26-29). The capitalistic marked economy plays a significant role in this development, but competition is generally the primary way of allocating resources, prestige, and positions in modern societies. This is obviously the case in the market economy, elite sports, and politics, but competition also plays a huge role in academia, where the allocation of grants, positions and promotions is based on competition. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite its merits as a compelling framework for understanding the human condition in modern societies in general and to some extent within academia, Rosa’s theory of acceleration has also been criticized and found too simplistic to capture the complexities of time issues related to scientific knowledge production. Felt (2017), for example, on the one side found strong support for Rosa’s general acceleration hypothesis within academia, but at the same time she also emphasises that a theory of acceleration within academia must be able to incorporate examples of “micro-resistance and of successful efforts of local re-timing” (p. 141). Vostal et al. (2019) argues in favour of what they call temporal complexity in scientific knowledge production. Without directly arguing against Rosa, they write that “… science is characterized by layers and levels of diverse temporalities, rather than by one type of temporality: either problematic and much criticized ‘fast academia’ fed by neoliberal reforms/ideology or, often relatedly, ready and normative accounts demanding ‘slowdown’ of science/academia.” (p. 793). To them, “Manoeuvring, (un)bending, (dis)connecting, responding and reacting to, (re)routing and (re)orienting both expected and unexpected tempos of experimental, cognitive and institutional nature constitute a fundamental feature in the process of scientific knowledge production.” (p. 799). In an earlier article, closer to the work of Rosa, Vostal (2015) investigated the tension between different forms of time requirements and time-desires – fast and slow – in academia and especially analysed the feeling of guilt that academics can experience as a result of not being able to decide the pace of their work and because of the prioritisations they are forced to make.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on 52 interviews with researchers, Ylijoki and Mäntylä (2003) analysed researchers’ experience of time in academia and construct four analytical categories or experiences of time: 1) ‘Scheduled time’, which is the externally imposed and controlled timetables (i.e., meetings, deadlines, supervision, lecturing hours, admin etc.). According to Ylijoki and Mäntylä an important feature of this form of time is its accelerating pace. There is a feeling of having to do more and more of these externally imposed tasks. 2) In stark contrast to scheduled time is ‘timeless time’. This form of time is internally motivated and it’s a form of time in which clock time loses its importance. Instead, this time relates to researchers’ enthusiasm and fascination of their work and sometimes also to a feeling of being in ‘flow’. For most of the interviewees ‘timeless time’ is seen as an ideal, something they perhaps experienced when working with their PhD thesis, something they still encounter from time to time, or something they strive for, something that they might reach in the future, when they are done with their current obligations. 3) Ylijoki and Mäntylä also discuss a third form of time, called ‘contracted time’. This form of time is connected to the experience of time in relation to fixed-term research and work contracts. It includes a strong focus on the time that is left of one’s current contract, and the opportunities for getting a new contract. This form of employment gives the researchers little time to rest or make long time plans. There is a strong focus on achievable results within the contract period and to funders and employers. According to Ylijoki and Mäntylä, the “dominating time perspective in an academic unit are temporary, episodic and contracted”, because of the growing number of fixed-termed researchers. 4) Finally, Ylijoki and Mäntylä also identify a fourth form of time called ‘personal time’. This form of time is closely connected to the finitude of human existence, to life and death. It has to do with the time researchers spent on themselves, their families, and friends. With a concept from Arlie Hochschild, Ylijoki and Mäntylä writes that researchers’ often end up having to steal time from their families and themselves to fulfil their obligations (scheduled time, contracted time) and to be able to experience ‘timeless time’.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Ylijoki (2015), the meaning of contracted time, here referred to as ‘project time’, is explored further. Ylijoki makes a distinction between ‘project time’ and ‘process time’. According to Ylijoki, we have experienced a \u003cem\u003eprojectification\u003c/em\u003e of the whole of society, and not least of academia. Here, the project format has become the standard way of organising research and with Barbara Adams, project time is described as dominated by the four Cs: commodification, control, colonization, and compression of time. In the paper, Ylijoki analyses the tension between the clock controlled ‘project time’, which she also describes as linear, cumulative, and progressive, and ‘process time’, which is blurred, obscure, and unlimited. She summarises the difference as “… project time represents the temporality inherent in the project format, which has become the dominant method for organizing academic research (and several other activities) at the present-day university. Process time, embedded in the internal logic of research activity, stands in many respects in opposition to project time.” (Ylijoki 2015, p. 97).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs we shall see in the Findings section, \u003cem\u003elack of time\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003etime pressure\u003c/em\u003e are important concepts in our study, used by the interviewees to explain why research quality has come under pressure. Time pressure can be understood in relation to Ylijoki’s concepts of project time and process time. If the time allocated to a particular piece of research (\u003cem\u003eproject time\u003c/em\u003e) is less than what is needed to carry out the research (\u003cem\u003eprocess time\u003c/em\u003e), then a researcher will experience time pressure. However, time pressure can also be related to what Müller (2014) calls ‘anticipatory acceleration’ in her study of early career researchers within the life sciences. She defines ‘anticipatory acceleration’ as a “[…] type of acceleration that aims at increasing units of output per units of time that is not developed in response to a certain event or specific time horizon, but rather constitutes a generalized response to a state of pervasive competition […]” (Müller 2014). The feeling of time pressure is here connected to the general competition within academia and can be understood as a side-effect of career concerns, i.e., of the anticipation of the research output needed for having a career in academia. As Müller puts it: “Under the conditions of anticipatory acceleration everyday time is always scarce and desired to be devoted to those activities that can increase the output per time ratio.” (Müller 2014).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods and analytical approach","content":"\u003cp\u003eAlthough many things point in the direction of increased speed in academia \u0026ndash; that we have to handle more activities per time unit in academia today than previously \u0026ndash; we will in this paper use what Rosa calls a \u003cem\u003esubjective approach\u003c/em\u003e to the study of time and research integrity (2010, p. 21). We do not attempt to measure the objective changes that have occurred in academia, i.e., the number of activities handled per time unit before and now but will focus on researchers\u0026rsquo; experiences of time (pressure) and acceleration in relation to research integrity with the objective to understand researchers\u0026rsquo; experience of time and the room for focusing on quality in the research process.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn \u003cem\u003eobjective\u003c/em\u003e approach would focus on and examine the number of tasks that researchers must handle today compared to previously and ask questions like: \u0026ldquo;Are the sum of tasks we have to deal with per time unit today bigger than the sum we had to take care of 10, 20, or 30 years ago?\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Do we (have to) write and publish more today than previously (to get promoted, for example)?\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Can we detect an acceleration in the number of publications and achievements you need to have on your CV to get a permanent position in academia?\u0026rdquo; On the other hand, a \u003cem\u003esubjective\u003c/em\u003e approach \u0026ndash; in our case \u0026ndash; is more interested in the researchers\u0026rsquo; \u003cem\u003eexperience\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eperception\u003c/em\u003e of time pressure, acceleration, and research integrity in the current research system. This approach can provide insights into the way in which researchers think about their own and others research practices, including their perceptions of the current reward and merit system and the effect this system is experienced to have on contemporary knowledge production.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis in the present paper draws on a vast and unique set of data from two completed focus group studies on research cultures and practices in relation to research integrity conditions, challenges, and needs. The secondary analysis performed is based on material from 36 focus group interviews across seven European countries, encompassing a total of 172 researchers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first study aimed to study researcher perceptions and practices of questionable research practices (QRPs) across main research fields and across eight Danish Universities. The research fields comprised of the humanities, medical science, technical science, social science and natural science. The focus group study encompassed 22 focus groups with a total of 105 researchers, and it formed part of a nationally funded project on the \u0026lsquo;Practices, Perceptions, and Patters of Research Integrity\u0026rsquo; (PRINT 2017-19). The main objective was to survey and explore the state and conditions of research practices, knowledge production and research integrity in Denmark. Table SI1 provides an overview of the groups according to distributed socio-demographic information (see Supplementary Information).\u0026nbsp;Study findings and detailed information on methodology, including research design, sample- and recruitment strategy, have been reported in\u0026nbsp;Ravn and S\u0026oslash;rensen (2021).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second focus group study formed part of an EU funded project concerning \u0026lsquo;Standard Operating Procedures for Research Integrity\u0026rsquo; (SOPs4RI 2019-2022). It aimed to examine and promote transformational research integrity processes through European research- and funding organisations. The study conducted 30 focus group interviews across eight European countries and aimed to explore how different research areas perceived and prioritised a variety of different research integrity topics related to research environments, collaborative research, RI breaches, among others, and of relevance to both research and funding organisations. Fourteen focus groups were comprised solely of researchers, while the remaining 16 focus groups included both researchers and relevant stakeholders. In the present study we only use material from the 14 focus group interviews with researchers. Table SI2 in Supplementary Information provides an overview of the 14 focus groups and the distribution of the 67 participants, who took part in these interviews, including research area, stakeholder representation and demographic characteristics. As in the first study, all main research areas were represented in this study (the humanities, social science, natural science incl. technical science and medical science, incl. biomedicine). Study findings and details on methods have been reported in S\u0026oslash;rensen et al. (2021) and S\u0026oslash;rensen et al. (2020). All focus groups transcripts from this study have been made publicly available in anonymised versions to allow for secondary analyses of the data and to promote open data access (https://osf.io/e9u8t/?view_only=).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthors MPS and TR led the design, execution, analysis, and reporting of the original studies. The extensive discussions in the 36 focus groups on promoting good research and integrity practices and procedures yielded numerous accounts of researchers lived experiences in academia and their perceptions of time and the research process, which we could not closely examine and report on in Ravn and S\u0026oslash;rensen (2021) and S\u0026oslash;rensen et al. (2021). These accounts include narratives, experiences and examples of navigating within contemporary academia across countries, institutions, research fields and disciplines, which individually and collectively shed light on the current reward and merit system in academia (cf. Introduction) and its experienced effects on contemporary knowledge production.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe guiding research question for this new, secondary analysis has been: \u0026lsquo;\u003cem\u003eHow do researchers across research fields and disciplines experience time pressure and acceleration within academia in\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;relation to research quality and integrity\u003c/em\u003e?\u0026rsquo; All interview transcripts from the 36 focus groups have been re-coded in NVivo (by author ML), guided by the main research question and hence operationalised according to a number of sub-questions and a theoretically informed coding strategy (cf. \u0026lsquo;Theoretical frame\u0026rsquo;), which focused on a thematic across case comparison of the focus group data. While the coding strategy was informed by theories of acceleration in academia, the nature of the data supported an explorative and inductive approach, which allowed for emerging and cross-cutting topics of relevance for the secondary analysis. In the reporting of the two original studies, participants were pseudonymised (Ravn and S\u0026oslash;rensen 2021; S\u0026oslash;rensen et al. 2021; S\u0026oslash;rensen et al. 2020) and references to participants after quotes presented only general information, such as type of representation, position, and gender without disclosing any identifying information. The same approach has been adopted in the reporting of the current analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFindings section: Time pressure, declining quality, and the rise of a new merit system\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this section, we first look at the general time pressure that researchers experience in their daily work. We then focus on the experienced time pressure\u0026rsquo;s impact on, a) the quality of the research produced, and b) the quality assurance system within research. Hereafter, we look at additional research integrity problems \u0026ndash; and a few advantages \u0026ndash; observed by the interviewees in relation to time pressure and accelerated research processes. Next, the section turns to the experienced reasons for accelerated research processes, before drawing the contours of a new merit and reward system that according to the interviewees dominates contemporary academia and is experienced to be the root cause of many current quality and research integrity problems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExperienced time pressure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross the focus groups, interviewees expressed a feeling of working under intensifying time pressure in contemporary academia. Many felt they needed to perform more tasks today than previously and that the allocated time per task was too short. Interviewees reflected on experiences of time shortage and its impact on research from multiple angles. Related to research they, for example, expressed having too little time to read, to collect new data, to conduct in-depth analysis, to comply with relevant regulations, to observe due diligence, and to supervise and mentor. To simply find the time to do research was difficult for many of the researchers.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBelow, we will explore the different forms of time pressure experienced by researchers in relation to the different phases of the research process. However, before we examine the different research phases, it should be noted that the interviewees generally experienced a considerable mismatch between expectations and the time available to carry out set tasks. The clashing of research and teaching time as well as research and application time especially stood out in the interviews. Writing applications and teaching often steal time away from research, as illustrated in this quote by a Danish female assistant professor within the social sciences (translated by authors):\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterviewee: \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;Yeah, so we have two and a half hours of preparation time for a one-hour lecture, right? And I really think so - I spend an enormous amount of research time preparing lessons, and I don\u0026rsquo;t think I\u0026rsquo;m the only one who does that.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterviewer: \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;So when do you do research?\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterviewee: \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;Well, Sunday evenings (mild laughter).\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhenever there is a conflict of time between tasks, research seems to have to give way to the other tasks. As an interviewee on a temporary contract explains: \u0026ldquo;I\u0026apos;ve been teaching actually for a couple of years now and I\u0026apos;ve had no time for publishing, so I am actually now waiting for my third contract to run out so that I\u0026apos;ll have this obligatory time off to actually do the writing and then hope to get a position somewhere.\u0026rdquo; (Lecturer, humanities, the Netherlands). However, even though many of the interviewees experienced having very limited time available to do research and write papers, they still felt they had to publish \u0026ldquo;a lot\u0026rdquo; to stay in academia: \u0026ldquo; [\u0026hellip;] so that\u0026apos;s also what you\u0026rsquo;ll be measured on next time you have to have a position: How many articles has she published?\u0026rdquo; (Postdoc, natural science, female, Denmark, translated by authors)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTime pressure and declining quality in the production of knowledge\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross disciplinary fields and countries, the focus group participants express a feeling of being under double pressure. On the one side they feel they must carry out more tasks today than before, and that they have less time for each task compared to earlier. They especially experience a lack of time to do research, and to do it as thoroughly as they would like to. On the other side, they at the same time experience high publication pressure; a feeling of having to publish more than previously to make it in academia (to get grants, a permanent position, or promotions).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe experienced double-pressure leads to a general feeling of lacking time to live up to norms on good research practices within the researchers\u0026rsquo; different fields, which is perceived to harm the quality of the research produced. The pressure to publish is in general experienced to prioritize quantity over quality. Detrimental effects on research quality are observed across the entire research process by the interviewees. To shed more light on this, we will use an analytical model for the research process encompassing five phases (cf. Ravn and S\u0026oslash;rensen, 2021): the \u003cem\u003eidea generation phase\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eresearch design phase\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003edata collection phase\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003edata analysis phase\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eresearch publication and reporting phase\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the \u003cem\u003eidea generation phase\u003c/em\u003e, interviewees state that they lack time to come up with new ideas, and that it is safer for them to reuse old ideas. They likewise feel they have too little time to read the existing literature before they start a new project: \u0026ldquo;\u0026ldquo;[\u0026hellip;] when you are under a lot of pressure, as we all are due to a large workload, then there is a tendency for people not to have enough time to read the literature within the field properly.\u0026rdquo; (Professor, humanities, female, Denmark, translation by authors). This is experienced to lead to too identical studies with too small contributions that do not bring a field forward.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the \u003cem\u003eresearch design phase\u003c/em\u003e, interviewees point out that time pressure leads to fewer \u0026lsquo;high risk, high gain\u0026rsquo; studies: \u0026ldquo;The worst problem with all this publishing pressure is all the stuff that doesn\u0026rsquo;t get done. We don\u0026rsquo;t choose a research area with high risk, because we know too well that there is not much chance of the t-statistics becoming significant.\u0026rdquo; (Associate professor, social science, male, Denmark, translation by authors). The experienced publication pressure thus creates a feeling of not having time to pursue riskier research areas, i.e., areas with more uncertainty where one risks ending up with negative results that will be difficult to get published. Further, interviewees \u0026ndash; like e.g., this Danish humanities scholar (professor, male) \u0026ndash; express a feeling of not having time to use more advanced or ambitious methods (translated by authors):\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Interviewee: \u0026nbsp;I love doing these long historical analyses, but it is extremely time-consuming. You have to sit and rummage around in various archives and so on. There is no time for that. So what it ends up with often is that I look at what others have done of historical analyses and then I start to cannibalize a bit on this. And sometimes I work from there and find some data myself, right? But sometimes I end up doing a reinterpretation of the historical analyses, and see them in a different light, right? Sometimes I add a few additional sources, instead of starting from scratch myself. I definitely don\u0026rsquo;t have time for that.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterviewer: \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;It makes for poorer research?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterviewee: \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;I think so. In any case, it does not produce the research with originality that could have been done if I had had the time to do it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLike this scholar, many interviewees express a feeling of not having enough time to collect the most relevant data during the \u003cem\u003edata collection-phase\u003c/em\u003e. Because of the perceived pressure to publish, which is experienced to stem from institutions\u0026rsquo; bibliometric point systems and from career related competition, data collection risks becoming an activity where researchers think more about time issues than about collecting the most optimal data for a given research project:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;There, I mostly just think that I have to get those points [for the bibliometric assessment system used in this institution], and how can I do that most easily - meaning, how can I get as much as possible as fast as possible, what kind of data can I most easily access? Instead of thinking I have to do field work for three months in [name of place] again, I don\u0026apos;t have time for that at all. [\u0026hellip;] Then you think creatively that way, and it is not necessarily questionable research, because it can be both real and valid. But you think in a different way, because there is this [name of bibliometric assessment system \u0026hellip;]. For me, it affects what I study.\u0026rdquo; (Assistant professor, humanities, female, Denmark, translated by authors)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCareer considerations \u0026ndash; competition for grants, positions, and promotions \u0026ndash; more than research quality considerations seem to dictate the perception of how much time one can afford to use on data collection. In a focus group within clinical-translational medicine, an interviewee describes his experience of a speeded up contemporary research culture by talking about a younger colleague\u0026rsquo;s reaction to a story about a clinician, who used four years on collecting data for a study. The young colleague\u0026rsquo;s reaction to the story is also a perfect example of what M\u0026uuml;ller (2014) calls \u0026lsquo;anticipatory acceleration\u0026rsquo;. According to the interviewee, the young colleague said:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Shit, he [the clinician] must be stupid. Spending so much time collecting that data to be able to write those two articles. That\u0026rsquo;s completely crazy. Over here, we can do this and that and that, and then we have 10 articles. And if you haven\u0026apos;t done that, then you\u0026apos;re already behind from the start [\u0026hellip;]\u0026rdquo; (Associate professor, medical science, male, Denmark, translated by authors).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the \u003cem\u003edata analysis-phase\u003c/em\u003e interviewees likewise point to multiple examples of suboptimal research processes, due to lack of resources and a feeling of time pressure and competition: \u0026ldquo;[\u0026hellip;] the vast majority of research groups do not have the resources to really check things through and to spend too much time on it, and some of the groups that do really well do so precisely because they don\u0026apos;t [\u0026hellip;]\u0026rdquo; (Associate professor, medical science, male, Denmark, translated by authors).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn individual projects, career considerations is perceived to be the primary reason for using suboptimal processes together with the organization of research \u0026ndash; the \u003cem\u003eprojectification\u003c/em\u003e of research (Ylijoki, 2015) \u0026ndash; which means that one has a fixed number of years to do a research project, e.g. a PhD project, and not the time it takes to do the research, including thoroughly checking one\u0026rsquo;s results:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;But what I have experienced myself and around me is that there is sort of a time pressure especially when your PhD contract is almost finished. So, maybe at some point, you don\u0026apos;t do this extra analysis, you don\u0026apos;t extra check these outputs. And so, I feel like maybe it\u0026apos;s the risk in my case or around me is more like sloppiness a little bit. Because you just want to be very efficient with your time.\u0026rdquo; (Postdoc, medical science, female, the Netherlands). \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo use Ylijoki\u0026rsquo;s (2015) terminology, the interviewee points to a mismatch between \u003cem\u003eproject time\u003c/em\u003e (finishing on time) and \u003cem\u003eprocess time\u003c/em\u003e (doing the extra checks and analyses) and like most interviewees in our study clearly feels that project time trumps process time whenever there is a conflict between them.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, if we look at the \u003cem\u003epublication and reporting-phase\u003c/em\u003e interviewees here feel they have too little coherent time for writing. Lack of time for writing leads to the speeding up of the process, resulting in a lack of finesse in the form \u0026ndash; such as style of writing \u0026ndash; to a more profound impact on the content of a given publication. This is also the case in collaborative projects, where it can be hard to find the time to thoroughly discuss and combine the different parts of a publication before it is submitted:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;It becomes more like that we just share the work, \u0026quot;you do this, you do that\u0026quot;, and then we put it together, and then of course we all read it through. And then it\u0026apos;s often the case that it takes off in three different directions, because we didn\u0026apos;t have time to sit down and thoroughly discuss the concepts and how to do it.\u0026rdquo; (Professor, humanities, female, Denmark, translated by authors).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTime pressure and the declining quality of the quality assurance system \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs the previous subsection shows, there is a feeling among the interviewees that the quality of the research produced is harmed by the time pressure they experience. However, time pressure not only diminishes the quality of the research produced; it also harms academia\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003equality assurance system\u003c/em\u003e, not least the peer review system. One interviewee, who is also a journal editor, describes the development in this way:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I\u0026apos;m an editor for a couple of journals, and to me it\u0026apos;s very difficult to find good reviewers, even to find reviewers, is very difficult because people think that this is a waste of time, or some people think that this is a waste of time, and they prefer to work on their own studies, ignoring that the peer review process is the basis of the system, is the way science works. And also in the way the reviewers look at the papers, sometimes there is clear conflict of interest that editors not always deal with. Uhm and the quality of reviews is not always the quality that you should expect.\u0026rdquo; (Senior researcher, natural science, male, Spain).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome senior academics deal with the time pressure related to peer review by accepting review tasks but passing them on to one of their PhD students or postdocs. In some cases, senior researchers take the time to talk to their younger colleagues about the strengths and weaknesses of a paper, in other cases they just let the PhD-students do the reviews without any guidance. In general, time pressure can also lead to insufficient supervision of PhD students. For competition and prestige reasons, the number of PhD students that some senior academics supervise is increasing with potential negative impact on the supervision of the students. Interviewees describe how the lack of time for prober supervision leads to PhD-students submitting substandard papers to journals and conferences.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe lack of time to do thorough reviews of PhD students\u0026rsquo; research and to do in-depth journal peer reviews also applies for the work that goes on in the hiring and appointing system within academia. When applicants submit papers as part of an application, assessment committee members do not always have time to read the papers. Instead, they rely on metrics despite knowing that this is a suboptimal way of evaluating researchers\u0026rsquo; work:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;And if I\u0026apos;m in a panel of reviewing some applications or something like that, I do get credited a little bit of money, but I have so little time to do it, I mean, it\u0026apos;s just not. And that\u0026apos;s the reason why we end up focusing on these index numbers, which is bullshit of course.\u0026rdquo; (Associate professor, natural science, male, Denmark)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, when researchers notice that there might be integrity problems in the work of peers, they for time reasons do not always react to this. When they do, it is experienced to be very time consuming: \u0026ldquo;Everybody forgets how time consuming it is to prove misconduct. It takes months of work.\u0026rdquo; (Senior researcher, medical science, male, Greece).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFurther experienced impact on research integrity\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen listening to the interviewees in our study, there is no doubt that accelerated research processes and time pressure in general are experienced to harm research integrity. Researchers across disciplinary fields find it hard to live up to norms of good research practices because of time pressure and speeded up research processes. Although, as we shall see below, the current system also leads to changes in practice that can be beneficial to research integrity, the main narrative emerging in our study is that time pressure and accelerated research processes are detrimental to research integrity. Some interviewees even couple these processes directly to the use of QRPs or at least point out that QRPs become more attractive in a system focusing on speed and with high publication pressure:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;m afraid we work in a very high-tension field, and everybody is forced to publish as quickly as possible to become eligible for the grants, and yeah I\u0026apos;m afraid this is where integrity becomes damaged [\u0026hellip;] Yeah, p-hacking, and I guess really people would be tempted to go into the grey area. Maybe not outright fraud, but: \u0026lsquo;Can I remove an outlier still?, Can I test this in another way?, or coming up with hypotheses after the data has been gathered\u0026rdquo; (Assistant professor, social science, male, the Netherlands).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTime pressure might tempt some researchers to manipulate their analyses to show stronger positive effects, to ensure the publication is published and avoid the loss of time that would result from a failure to publish:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;(\u0026hellip;) you cannot publish anything which doesn\u0026rsquo;t show effect, or something. So, in order to get publications which are necessary, and because they\u0026apos;re an indicator of your performance, there is a really strong incentive, in my opinion, for scientific misconduct, for faking data \u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo; (Senior researcher, social sciences, male, Germany).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe current merit system is also understood to encourage researchers to publish small and insignificant papers: \u0026ldquo;\u0026ldquo;[\u0026hellip;] we are flooded with publications that don\u0026rsquo;t matter to anyone.\u0026rdquo; (Associate professor, natural science, male, Denmark). The pressure to publish is experienced to lead to an overproduction of publications with very limited contribution or novelty: \u0026ldquo;One basically produces ten times too many or 50 times too many articles. [...] They are just too close to each other. There is too little new.\u0026rdquo; (Associate professor, natural science, male, Denmark, translation by authors).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnfair assignments of authorships and authorship conflicts also seem to flourish in this system. The strong focus on quantity and researchers\u0026rsquo; need to boost their publication lists turn authorship discussions into a form of gift economy:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;[\u0026hellip;] there is a clear tendency of people saying implicitly that \u0026lsquo;if you put me on your paper, I\u0026apos;ll put you on my paper\u0026rsquo;, and then you see these papers with 10 or 15 authors, and essentially there is one who has done all the work, and the rest is just on for the ride. The problem is [\u0026hellip;] whoever has the most publications win and we need to break that, otherwise things are gonna move in a really bad direction.\u0026rdquo; \u0026nbsp;(Associate professor, natural science, male, Denmark)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthorships are used as a form of currency that can repay old favors or make collaborations run more smoothly: \u0026ldquo;[\u0026hellip;] we depend on the [name of] departments [\u0026hellip;] and sometimes that means that you add an author to a paper where the contribution is a bit, uhm, less than five percent [\u0026hellip;]\u0026rdquo; (Associate Professor, medical science, female, Denmark). \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, as mentioned above, besides the main narrative \u0026ndash; that time pressure and speeded up knowledge production processes are bad for research integrity \u0026ndash; a side story also emerged in the interviews. Some focus group participants from the humanities as well as the natural sciences expressed that besides the detrimental aspects of this development, there were also some positive elements. These views emerged during discussions on increasing publication rates, the peer review process, and pressure to publish at different career stages. For example, a natural science researcher pointed out that the increased focus on publications had given PhD students the opportunity to learn how to write papers and to practice their writing skills. In the humanities, several scholars pointed out that the development from writing articles and books in national languages to focusing more on international journal articles \u0026ndash; stimulated by new bibliometric-focused research assessment systems \u0026ndash; had led to more widespread use of peer review within the humanities, which again was perceived to have led to improvements in the overall quality of publications within different fields within the humanities:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I would say that, on the one hand, there is a tendency to proceed quickly and produce as much as possible, [\u0026hellip;] But it is also within the past ten years that peer review has become more common with us, compared to what it used to be. It has also led to an increase in quality, whereas some things that would have slipped through in the past, now these are weeded out\u0026rdquo; (Associate professor, humanities, male, Denmark).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe experienced reasons for the increased time pressure\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBut what then is causing this dominating feeling of time pressure in relation to research tasks? As already mentioned, teaching is by many interviewees perceived to take up more time than what is allocated to it and in this way, it eats up research time. As the university\u0026rsquo;s dependence on external funding increases, researchers now also have to spend more time applying for grants than before: \u0026ldquo;[\u0026hellip;] less time is actually spent on the actual research and more on writing applications and the competition we all know is getting harder and harder.\u0026rdquo; (Associate professor, humanities, female, Denmark). The combination of increasing demands for external funding and decreasing success rates puts extra pressure on researchers\u0026rsquo; time. However, winning a grant does not necessarily take off pressure and provide more time for the single steps in the research process. To the contrary, winning a grant might lead to even more time pressure: \u0026ldquo;In order to get proposals accepted, you have to promise to do more than you actually think you can achieve.\u0026rdquo; (Postdoc, technical science, male, Denmark, translation by authors). Especially early career researchers seem to be under a great deal of pressure to get the right grants to be able to move on in the research system: \u0026ldquo;[\u0026hellip;] when you finish your PhD, it\u0026apos;s \u0026lsquo;make it or break it\u0026rsquo;, [\u0026hellip;] then you have two years to create the results or the CV that will get you the job, because there are fewer and fewer grants to apply for when you get a little further [into the postdoc period].\u0026rdquo; (Associate professor, natural science, male, Denmark, translated by authors). If they are successful in getting a grant, pressure then comes from getting the results they promised in the application: \u0026ldquo;[\u0026hellip;] if you are a young group leader, this does not only apply to Denmark, it applies to the whole world, then you are typically hired on some interesting hypothesis, or some other interesting concept, and then it has to work, that is, if it doesn\u0026rsquo;t work [\u0026hellip;] then it is almost over for you.\u0026rdquo; (Associate professor, medical science, male, Denmark, translation by authors).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen listening to the interviewees, it becomes clear that time pressure is closely linked to \u003cem\u003ecompetition\u003c/em\u003e, i.e., that competition for grants, positions, and promotions lead to \u0026lsquo;anticipatory acceleration\u0026rsquo; (M\u0026uuml;ller 2014) and an experience of time pressure. As one of the interviewees explain: \u0026ldquo;as soon as you become a PhD it\u0026rsquo;s not nice but you\u0026apos;re competing with your colleagues, you\u0026apos;re competing with the other PhDs because there\u0026apos;s only going to be so many assistant professor positions, and after assistant professor there are only so many in the tracks, so I think the pressure with us is very real.\u0026rdquo; (Assistant professor, social science, male, the Netherlands). The career system is further tied to a general \u003cem\u003eprojectification\u003c/em\u003e (Ylijoko, 2015) of academic work, including research:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;To me, that\u0026apos;s where the pressure lies. It\u0026apos;s in how quickly you have to get things out. Also, because there... Now again, I think it is very typical for research careers that there are many projects, both project assignments and that things are generally very project-driven, where there is a clear deadline for when things must be finished. That might put extra pressure on top.\u0026rdquo; (Associate professor, humanities, male, Denmark, translation by authors).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe project format has thus become a standard modus operandi in academia (Ylijoko, 2015; Felt, 2017). At the point of conception, studies are subject to accommodating the project format, hinged to fixed timelines, predictability of findings, the feasibility of positive results, and inflexibility of research design. Working in project-related temporary positions also means you always need to have your next position in mind. In this way, one\u0026rsquo;s current research practice becomes \u0026ndash; at least partly \u0026ndash; shaped by one\u0026rsquo;s perception of what will secure one\u0026rsquo;s next position.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe current reward and merit system\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs we have seen in the quotes above, interviewees express a clear understanding of what counts in the current merit and reward system in academia. Interviewees\u0026rsquo; understanding of this system was remarkably homogeneous across the 36 focus group interviews, i.e., across interviewees\u0026rsquo; seniority, disciplinary and national backgrounds, so much so that we on this basis will attempt to draw the contours of the dominating contemporary reward and merit system in academia. It\u0026rsquo;s important to emphasise that this is the system as it looks through the eyes of the interviewees or rather as it shows itself in the narratives of the interviewed researchers in our study. It can be understood as a form of ideal type (Weber, 1949) system that in its purest form probably does not exist anywhere. Nevertheless, it can help us understand where the pressure on research quality, described above, is perceived to come from.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe system, which could be termed \u0026lsquo;the quantitative assessment system\u0026rsquo;, is summarised in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e. The left side of the table represents the dominating way of thinking about the current reward and merit system among the focus group participants \u0026ndash; \u0026lsquo;the quantitative assessment system\u0026rsquo; \u0026ndash; and the right side represents the contrast to this system, \u0026lsquo;the qualitative assessment system\u0026rsquo;. The elements on the right side are a mix of interviewees\u0026rsquo; wishes for how it ought to be and stories of how it used to be, e.g., that there used to be more room for being thorough and to be able to wait with publications until one had substantial results, as e.g. expressed by this interviewee:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;... to some extent, we compromise all the time [in relation to the depth of the research carried out and to publications]. [\u0026hellip;] we might think that this is not a problem we will get to the bottom of, and perhaps in the old days we would have said, \u0026lsquo;Well, I\u0026apos;ll continue with this for 20 years until I can deliver a thesis of 100 pages or more, and then I\u0026apos;ve sort of answered this question.\u0026rsquo; No, now when you\u0026apos;ve got some data and you think you have enough for a publication, off it goes...\u0026rdquo; \u0026nbsp;(Associate professor, natural science, male, Denmark, translation by authors).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"642\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"100%\" colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1. Two ideal type reward and merit systems\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"48.52255054432349%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIdeal type 1: The quantitative assessment system\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThis is the current system, which according to the interviewees rewards and/or encourage:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.47744945567651%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIdeal type 2: The qualitative assessment system\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThis is the system as it ought to be or was in the past, according to the interviewees. It rewards and/or encourage:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"48.52255054432349%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuantity\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.47744945567651%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"48.52255054432349%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProjectification and focus on \u0026lsquo;project time\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.47744945567651%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRoom for \u0026lsquo;process time\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"48.52255054432349%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePapers \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.47744945567651%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBooks and more comprehensive papers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"48.52255054432349%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncremental steps (salami slicing)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.47744945567651%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSubstantial contribution (giving full accounts of findings in publications)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"48.52255054432349%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlaying it safe (knowing that you will get results)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.47744945567651%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTaking risks (blue ocean, basic research)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"48.52255054432349%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCopying and reusing ideas, approaches, designs, data, etc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.47744945567651%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOriginality, advanced methods, and time to do extra data collection\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"48.52255054432349%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo be fast\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.47744945567651%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo be thorough\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"48.52255054432349%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrategic thinking (related to career)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.47744945567651%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJoy of work\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"48.52255054432349%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo publish as much as possible and as soon as you have first results\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.47744945567651%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo publish when you have substantial results\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"48.52255054432349%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMore authors per paper\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.47744945567651%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMore strict interpretations of what it takes to be a co-author\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"48.52255054432349%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFocus on writing and output\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.47744945567651%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFocus on reading and process\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"48.52255054432349%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKnowledge production as a means to an end (points in an assessment system, individual careers, new grants, solve pre-defined problems etc.)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.47744945567651%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKnowledge production as a goal in itself (enlightenment, deepening our understanding of Nature and the world etc.)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"48.52255054432349%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIdeal type researcher: The successful head of a lab or research unit, who is constantly applying for new grants and who gets his name on all papers from that unit by just reading and commenting on them.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"51.47744945567651%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIdeal type researcher: the Nobel prize laurate, who pursued a bold idea that nobody believed in, and who via basic funding from the university spent decades to study a problem (Jens Christian Skou)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;These stories of how it used to be resemble what Ylijoki (2005) calls \u003cem\u003eacademic nostalgia\u003c/em\u003e and Felt (2017) refers to as \u003cem\u003ea golden past\u003c/em\u003e, \u0026ldquo;when there was still time to think, when there was virtually no talk of careers and strategic planning, when research was not necessarily tied to finding a format that fitted the project logic, and when speed and efficiency were not the primary concerns\u0026rdquo; (p.2). Interviewees do not seem to believe that this was how it really was in the old days, but they use these descriptions to point out what current academia \u003cem\u003eis not\u003c/em\u003e. Even more than the contemporary system, these counterexamples must therefore likewise be understood as an ideal type that has never existed in a pure form anywhere.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe contemporary reward and merit system can \u0026ndash; as an ideal type \u0026ndash; be summarised as a system that prioritises quantity to quality: the more papers and grants you have, the better you will do in the current system. This encourages strategic thinking and \u0026lsquo;playing it safe\u0026rsquo;. As a researcher you need to know that you will end up with publishable results before you start a research process. Otherwise, you jeopardize your career. In the present system, knowledge production becomes a means to an end. Research is carried out to get points in an assessment system, to benefit individual careers, to get new grants, and to solve pre-defined problems that the researcher knows can be solved. In this system, researchers are rewarded for reusing data, approaches, designs, ideas etc. Speed and to publish as much as possible as soon as possible is prioritised. Instead of collecting more data, doing a more comprehensive analysis, or getting a fuller picture of what is going on, the system encourages researchers to publish as soon as they have first results. In this system, the number of co-authors also increases because of the focus on number of papers: the more co-authors, the more papers the individual researcher \u0026ldquo;can produce\u0026rdquo;, and the better he or she will stand in the competition. The ideal researcher in this merit and reward system is the successful head of a department or lab, who constantly has an eye out for new funding opportunities and who gets his name on all the papers from the research unit by simply reading and commenting on paper drafts. The counterexample, mentioned in one of the Danish focus groups, is the Nobel laurate, physiologist Jens Christian Skou (1918-2018) from Aarhus University, who got the Nobel prize in Chemistry in 1997. Skou said on many occasions that he would never have been able to do the research that led to the Nobel prize \u0026ndash; awarded for the discovery of the sodium-potassium pump \u0026ndash; in the current system: \u0026ldquo;When I claimed that an enzyme could transport ions, people said I was talking nonsense. I would never have been given the funding to investigate this under the current system.\u0026quot; (Jespersgaard, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAn important finding in our study \u0026ndash; one that also supports the research assessment reform movement\u0026rsquo;s call for a change in the way we assess research and researchers (cf. \u0026lsquo;Introduction\u0026rsquo;) \u0026ndash; is the detrimental effect that the current merit and reward system is experienced to have on scientific progress and the quality of our combined knowledge production. Like Edwards and Roy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), we find that problems with robustness and lack of reproducibility of scientific results (see e.g. Ioannidis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Baker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Resnik \u0026amp; Shamoo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) are intimately related to the current reward and merit system in academia. As the interviewees in our study pointed out, \u003cem\u003equality and integrity\u003c/em\u003e do not count to the same extent as \u003cem\u003equantity and speed\u003c/em\u003e in the current system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs already pointed out in the Introduction, there seems to be a \u003cem\u003esystem failure\u003c/em\u003e in the current merit and reward system, which means that behaviour that benefits the quality of the research produced \u0026ndash; that makes research more robust and trustworthy \u0026ndash; at the same time can be harmful for the career of the individual researcher (cf. Aubert Bonn and Pinxten \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Seen from a researchers\u0026rsquo; point of view, this system failure means that it becomes irrational for the individual researcher to go the extra mile to make their results more robust by, e.g., collecting additional data or run extra tests. Despite this system failure, the interviewed researchers still seemed to care about the quality of the research they produced. They were conscious of acceptable standards and in many cases went far in trying to find the necessary time to fulfil the experienced higher demands for publications while at the same time making sure that their research lived up to acceptable quality standards. This was, e.g., done by stealing time away from themselves and their families (leisure time, family time) to make sure they had enough \u0026lsquo;process time\u0026rsquo; for their research. However, the interviewees were likewise very aware that researchers, who prioritise quality and integrity risk losing out to researchers, who prioritise quantity and speed in the current reward and merit system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt can of course be discussed if this actually also is the case. If funding bodies and hiring committees in fact follow what we above called \u0026lsquo;the quantitative assessment system\u0026rsquo; and put more weight on quantity and speed than quality and integrity when they make decisions. However, no matter if this is the case or not, the mere \u003cem\u003eperception\u003c/em\u003e among researchers of this being the case might have an impact on the way research is produced by influencing researchers\u0026rsquo; behaviour. Studies have shown that only a few percentages of researchers engage in the most serious forms of scientific misconduct \u0026ndash; fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) \u0026ndash; but that questionable research practices (QRPs) are much more widespread and largely responsible for the quality problems we are facing in contemporary knowledge production (Steneck, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Fanelli, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; John et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Anderson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Bouter et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Ravn and S\u0026oslash;rensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Gopalakrishna et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Schneider et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Recent surveys likewise show that researchers\u0026rsquo; \u003cem\u003eperception\u003c/em\u003e of the pressure they are under to publish and attract external funding is positively correlated with their self-reported use of QRPs (Schneider et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Gopalakrishna et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on our findings, the attractiveness and widespread use of QRPs can be understood in relation to their capacity to \u003cem\u003eaccelerate\u003c/em\u003e the research process and shorten the time needed to get from research ideas to publications. For individual researchers and research groups this can be attractive and might even be seen as necessary in a highly competitive research system (cf. also Edwards and Roy\u0026rsquo;s, 2017, discussion of \u0026lsquo;perverse incentives\u0026rsquo; in a \u0026lsquo;hyper-competitive\u0026rsquo; science system). Different QRPs are used for accelerating research processes in different main areas of research (cf. Ravn and S\u0026oslash;rensen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Examples include deselecting time-demanding methods and not doing sufficient controls and validations of results. Such practices enable individual researchers or groups to progress from idea generation to final publication more rapidly. However, as we have heard from researchers in the present study, increased speed often comes at a cost. Research conducted through accelerated practices can lack originality and robustness and it might therefore contribute little of value to our collective knowledge. Thus, while such QRPs may help individual researchers achieve personal goals faster, they risk slowing down progress in our collective knowledge production process and thereby ending up wasting (collective) time and resources.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eBy way of a secondary analysis of 36 focus group interviews across seven European countries in which 172 researchers took part, we found that researchers across countries, disciplines, gender, and seniority paint a strikingly similar picture of the current reward and merit system in academia. This picture is in line with the one painted by the \u0026lsquo;research assessment reform movement\u0026rsquo; (DORA, CoARA etc.). According to the interviewees, the current system rewards \u003cem\u003espeed\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003equantity\u003c/em\u003e, i.e. to produce as many results, papers, citations etc. as fast as possible, at the expense of focusing on \u003cem\u003equality\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eintegrity\u003c/em\u003e in the research process. In doing this, the current system is perceived to harm the robustness of the knowledge produced in contemporary academia. The findings in our study are thus in line with previous studies by Aubert Bonn and Pinxten (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and Edwards and Roy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). However, by giving more space to the voices of researchers than previous studies have done, our study offers a deeper understanding of researchers\u0026rsquo; perception of the current assessment system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther, the study\u0026rsquo;s findings and analysis offer a new understanding of QRPs. The study suggests understanding the widespread use of QRPs not just in relation to the current reward and merit system, but equally important in relation to a general feeling of \u003cem\u003eacceleration\u003c/em\u003e in academia. It seems to be the toxic combination of the current quantitative assessment system and the perceived acceleration of academic work that make QRPs attractive for some researchers. Diminishing the use of QRPs would require changing these researchers\u0026rsquo; perception of what matters in academia. As our findings show, this would require that academia move in the direction of a more qualitative research assessment system. Our findings and analysis thus also support the research assessment reform movement\u0026rsquo;s efforts to change the current system and find a better balance between \u003cem\u003equantity and speed\u003c/em\u003e on the one side and \u003cem\u003equality and integrity\u003c/em\u003e on the other side.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank the 172 interviewees for their time and for sharing their views with us. The authors also wish to thank fellow focus group co-investigators in the SOPs4RI project: Anna-Kathrine Bendtsen, Ana Marušić, Rea Roja, Panagiotis Kavouras, Krishma Labib, Joeri K. Tijdink, Giuseppe A. Veltri, Andrea Reyes Elizondo, Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner and Josephine Bergmans as well as colleagues in the PRINT project, especially Jesper W. Schneider (PI), Niels Mejlgaard and Kaare Aagaard. Further, we would like to thank Serge Horbach, Lise Degn, Rachel Fishberg and Sven Arend Ulpts, who offered valuable comments to an early version of this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe PRINT project (Practices, Perceptions, and Patterns of Research Integrity) was funded by the Danish Agency for Higher Education and Science (Ministry of Higher Education and Science) under Grant No 6183-00001B. The SOPs4RI project was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 824481.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eEthical approval\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval for the focus group interviews in the SOPs4RI project was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee at Aarhus University (ref. no 2019-0015957). In addition, a national approval was obtained in Croatia. There is no ethical approval of the focus group study in the PRINT project (this is in accordance with Danish standards. In Denmark, it is not mandatory to have ethical approvals of social science studies with adults like e.g. researchers).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eInformed consent\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the SOPs4RI study, written informed consent forms were signed by all interviewees before the interviews. For the PRINT project, oral consent was given and recorded on tape and video at the beginning of the interviews by all interviewees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eContribution - CReDIt information\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMads P. Sørensen\u003c/strong\u003e: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review \u0026amp; Editing, Supervision, Project administration\u003cstrong\u003e. Marina Lambert\u003c/strong\u003e: Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – original draft \u003cstrong\u003eTine Ravn\u003c/strong\u003e: Methodology,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInvestigation, Validation, Writing – original draft.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAubert Bonn N, Pinxten W (2021) Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers\u0026rsquo; opinions on success indicators. PLOS ONE 16(2): e0243664. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243664 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson, M.S., Shaw, M.A., Steneck, N.H., Konkle, E., \u0026amp; Kamata, T. (2013). Research Integrity and Misconduct in the Academic Profession. In M. Paulsen (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eHigher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 28. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5836-0_5 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaker, M., 2016. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Survey sheds light on the \u0026ldquo;crisis\u0026rdquo; rocking research. Nature, 533, pp. 452-454.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBouter, L.M., et al. (2016). Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1(17).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoARA (2024a). Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment, https://coara.eu/app/uploads/2022/09/2022_07_19_rra_agreement_final.pdf \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoARA, (2024b). https://coara.eu/agreement/signatories/ \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCurry, S., de Rijcke, S., Hatch, A., Pillay, D., van der Weijden, I. and Wilsdon, J. (2020) The changing role of funders in responsible research assessment: progress, obstacles \u0026amp; the way ahead. RoRI. Working Paper No. 3., November 2020. DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.13227914 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDORA (2024a). The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) https://sfdora.org/read/ \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDORA (2024b). https://sfdora.org/signers/ \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEdwards, M.A., Roy, S. (2017) Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Engineering Science\u003c/em\u003e, 2017. 34(1): 51-61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFanelli, D. (2009). How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE, 4(5).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFelt U (2017) Of time-scapes and knowledge-scapes: Re-timing research and higher education. In: Scott P, Gallacher J and Parry G (eds) New Landscapes and Languages of Higher Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 129\u0026ndash;148.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGopalakrishna G, ter Riet G, Vink G, Stoop I, Wicherts JM, Bouter LM (2022) Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PLoS ONE 17(2): e0263023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. \u003cem\u003eNature\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e520\u003c/strong\u003e, 429\u0026ndash;431 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIoannidis, J.P.A., 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoSMed 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJespersgaard, 2018: https://newsroom.au.dk/en/news/show/artikel/obituary-a-researcher-with-all-his-heart/ \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohn, L.K., Loewenstein, G., \u0026amp; Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices with Incentives for Truth Telling. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science, 23\u003c/em\u003e(5), 524\u0026ndash;532.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoher D, Bouter L, Kleinert S, Glasziou P, Sham MH, Barbour V, et al. (2020) The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS Biol 18(7): e3000737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eM\u0026uuml;ller R: \u0026quot;Racing for What? Anticipation and Acceleration in the Work and Career Practices of Academic Life Science Postdocs\u0026quot;. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2014; 15(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-15.3.2245 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRavn T., S\u0026oslash;rensen M.P. (2021) Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research. Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Jun 16;27(4):40. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00310-z. PMID: 34136962.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eResnik D.B., Shamoo, A.E. (2017). Reproducibility and research integrity. Accountability in Research, 24(2), pp. 116-123. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2016.1257387 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosa H (2010) \u003cem\u003eAlienation and Acceleration: Towards a Critical Theory of Late-Modern Temporality\u003c/em\u003e, Malmo: NSU Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosa H (2013) \u003cem\u003eSocial Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity\u003c/em\u003e (Translated by J Trejo-Mathys). New York: Columbia University Press. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRushforth A., Hammarfelt, B. (2024). The rise of responsible metrics as a professional reform movement: A collective action frames account. Quantitative Science Studies 2024; doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00280 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchneider, J. W., Allum, N., Andersen, J. P., Petersen, M., Mejlgaard, N., \u0026amp; Zachariae, R. (2023, September 13). Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Cross-national evidence for widespread involvement but not systematic use of questionable research practices across all fields of research. MetaArXiv Preprints https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/r6j3z \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026oslash;rensen M.P., Ravn T., Bendtsen A-K., Reyes Elizondo, A., Kaltenbrunner, W., \u0026Scaron;čepanović, R., Maru\u0026scaron;ić, A., Kavouras, P., Labib, K., Tijdink, J., Veltri, G-A., Bergmans, J. (2020) D5.2: Report on the results of the focus group interviews. file:///C:/Users/au5196/Downloads/D5.2_Report-on-the-Results-of-the-Focus-Group-Interviews-2-4.pdf Accessed 14 Feb 2024.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026oslash;rensen, M.P., Ravn, T., Maru\u0026scaron;ić, A. et al. (2021) Strengthening research integrity: which topic areas should organisations focus on?. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8, 198 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00874-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVostal, F. (2015). Academic life in the fast lane: The experience of time and speed in British academia. Time \u0026amp; Society, 24(1), 71\u0026ndash;95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X13517537\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVostal, F., Benda, L., \u0026amp; Virtov\u0026aacute;, T. (2019). Against reductionism: On the complexity of scientific temporality. Time \u0026amp; Society, 28(2), 783\u0026ndash;803. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X17752281\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYlijoki O-H, M\u0026auml;ntyl\u0026auml; H (2003) Conflicting time perspectives in academic work. Time \u0026amp; Society 12(1): 55\u0026ndash;78.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYlijoki O-H. (2015). Conquered by project time? Conflicting temporalities in university research. In: Gibbs P, Ylijoki O-H, Guzm\u0026aacute;n-Valenzuela C (eds) Universities in the Flux of Time. An Exploration of Time and Temporality in University Life, London: Routledge, pp. 94\u0026ndash;107.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeber, M. (1949): \u0026ldquo;Objectivity\u0026rdquo; in Social Science and Social Policy, in: \u003cem\u003eMax Weber On The Methodology of the Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, Trans. and Eds. By Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch. Forward by Edward A. Shils. The Free Press of Glencoe, Illinois.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[{"identity":"c74baca0-cee6-428a-8cf6-c132314deb1b","identifier":"10.13039/501100001825","name":"Danish Agency for Science and Higher Education","awardNumber":"6183-00001B","order_by":0},{"identity":"da5c327c-f9e1-42f5-aedd-59420ff1fc4d","identifier":"10.13039/100010661","name":"Horizon 2020 Framework Programme","awardNumber":"824481","order_by":1}],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Aarhus University","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Research integrity, research quality, acceleration, QRPs, misconduct, research assessment, reform movement ","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4467477/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4467477/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe paper analyses the merit and reward system in contemporary academia and its influence on current knowledge production. This is done via a secondary analysis of 36 focus group interviews across seven European countries in which 172 researchers took part. Across countries, disciplines, gender, and seniority the interviewees paint a strikingly similar picture of the current reward and merit system in academia, which is perceived to reward \u003cem\u003espeed \u003c/em\u003eand \u003cem\u003equantity\u003c/em\u003eat the expense of \u003cem\u003equality\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eintegrity, \u003c/em\u003eand thereby potentially harming the robustness of the knowledge produced. The interviewees likewise express a longing for a more qualitative assessment system (in line with the ideas of the ‘research assessment reform movement’, cf. DORA, CoARA etc.). The theoretical frame for the analysis consists of theories of acceleration-related change in academia (Rosa, 2010, 2013, Ylijoki and Mäntylä, 2003; Ylijoki, 2015; Vostal, 2015, Vostal et al., 2019; Müller, 2014; Felt, 2017). The study uses this theoretical lens to give a unique insight into the effects of accelerated research processes on contemporary knowledge production, including a deeper understanding of the widespread use of questionable research practices (QRPs).\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"“Whoever has the most publications win”: time pressure, accelerated research processes and research integrity in contemporary academia","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-05-24 06:12:56","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4467477/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":2}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"d2e907e1-fcbf-4e29-8f4d-7fa76b675684","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 24th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":32319525,"name":"Sociology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-05-24T06:12:56+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-05-24 06:12:56","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4467477","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4467477","identity":"rs-4467477","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}