Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists

• Published in: Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) N.J.), 2024-03, Vol.43 (9), p.8423-8434
• Main Authors: Garcia-Garzon, Eduardo, Angulo-Brunet, Ariadna, Lecuona, Oscar, Barrada, Juan Ramón, Corradi, Guido
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Behavioral Science and Psychology; COVID-19; Global Psychological Perspectives on the COVID-19 Pandemic; Medical research; Psychology; Social Sciences
• ISSN: 1046-1310; 1936-4733
• DOI: 10.1007/s12144-022-02797-6

Amidst a worldwide vaccination campaign, trust in science plays a significant role when addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Given current concerns regarding research standards, we were interested in how Spanish scholars perceived COVID-19 research and the extent to which questionable research practices and potentially problematic academic incentives are commonplace. We asked researchers to evaluate the expected quality of their COVID-19 projects and other peers’ research and compared these assessments with those from scholars not involved in COVID-19 research. We investigated self-admitting and estimated rates of questionable research practices and attitudes towards current research status. Responses from 131 researchers suggested that COVID-19 evaluations followed partisan lines, with scholars being more pessimistic about others’ colleagues’ research than their own. Additionally,researchers not involved in COVID-19 projects were more negative than their participating peers. These differences were particularly notable for areas such as the expected theoretical foundations or overall quality of the research, among others. Most Spanish scholars expected questionable research practices and inadequate incentives to be widespread. In these two aspects, researchers tended to agree regardless of their involvement in COVID-19 research. We provide specific recommendations for improving future meta-science studies, such as redefining QRPs as inadequate research practices (IRP). This change could help avoid key controversies regarding QRPs’ definition while highlighting their detrimental impact. Lastly, we join previous calls to improve transparency and academic career incentives as a cornerstone for generating trust in science.