反身行为：发表压力如何影响天文学的研究质量
Reflexive Behaviour: How publication pressure affects research quality in Astronomy
AI总结：
本研究结合反身计量学与科研诚信研究，通过对全球3509名天文学家的调查，分析发表压力、公平感知与科研不端行为的关联，发现减少对发表率等指标的重视可提升科研质量。
摘要：
反身计量学是科学学的一个分支，旨在探究近几十科学界对问责制与绩效评估的需求如何塑造了研究文化。过度竞争与发表压力正是这种新自由主义文化的组成部分。科学家们如何应对这些压力？关于科研诚信与组织文化的研究表明，那些认为自己受到机构不公对待的人，更有可能做出越轨行为，比如科研不端行为。\n本研究以反身计量学为基础，结合组织文化对科研诚信影响的相关研究，对天文学家的研究行为展开了反思，主要探讨两个问题：1）研究（不端）行为在多大程度上具有反身性，即取决于对发表压力、分配公平与组织公平的感知？2）科研不端行为对研究质量有何影响？\n为开展这项研究，我们对全球范围内的学术与非学术天文学家进行了全面调查，共收到3509份回复。研究发现，发表压力可以解释19%的不端行为发生差异，以及7%到13%的分配公平与组织公平感知、工作过度投入的差异。我们关于科研不端对研究质量感知影响的结果表明，有问题的研究实践对认知层面的危害不容低估。这说明有必要进行政策调整。具体而言，在科研经费分配、望远镜观测时间分配以及机构奖励评定中，减少对发表率等计量指标的关注，将有助于培养更良好的科研行为，进而提升研究质量。
英文摘要：
Reflexive metrics is a branch of science studies which explores how the demand for accountability and performance measurement in science has shaped the research culture in recent decades. Hypercompetition and publication pressure are part of this neoliberal culture. How do scientists respond to these pressures? Studies on research integrity and organizational culture suggest that people who feel treated unfairly by their institution are more likely to engage in deviant behaviour, such as scientific misconduct. By building up on reflexive metrics, combined with studies on the influence of organisational culture on research integrity, this study reflects on the research behaviour of astronomers: 1) To what extent is research (mis-)behaviour reflexive, i.e. dependent on perceptions of publication pressure and distributive & organisational justice? 2) What impact does scientific misconduct have on research quality? In order to perform this reflection, we conducted a comprehensive survey of academic and non-academic astronomers worldwide and received 3,509 responses. We found that publication pressure explains 19% of the variance in occurrence of misconduct and between 7 and 13% of the variance of the perception of distributive & organisational justice as well as overcommitment to work. Our results on the perceived impact of scientific misconduct on research quality show that the epistemic harm of questionable research practices should not be underestimated. This suggests there is a need for a policy change. In particular, lesser attention to metrics (such as publication rate) in the allocation of grants, telescope time and institutional rewards would foster better scientific conduct and hence research quality.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
