Research Atlas
research atlas noun
A map of connected questions, evidence, and ideas - some established, some under investigation, and others still unresolved.
01. questionable research practice determinants [unresolved]
Why do researchers cut corners? The evidence increasingly suggests it's not simply a story of a broken incentive system. Publication pressure remains one of the strongest and most consistent predictors of engagement in questionable research practices (QRPs) - but individual-level factors, including personality traits and commitment to scientific norms like universalism and organised scepticism, appear to matter just as much. Notably, engagement doesn't vary substantially across institutions or between European and anglo-sphere countries, suggesting the drivers of QRP engagement are less about local institutional culture and more about either field-wide pressures that researchers everywhere face in similar ways, or stable individual dispositions that shape how researchers respond to those pressures.
Relevant outputs:
Brooker, R. & Allum, N. (2024). ‘Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture’ in Research Integrity and Peer Review. Multi-level analysis of an international researcher survey, testing individual-level factors (field, gender, contract type, career stage, adherence to scientific norms) alongside institution-level factors (industry type, perceived research culture, awareness of integrity policies). We found that career stage, contract type, field, norm adherence, and gender all predict QRP engagement, alongside institutional culture and publication pressure. Results presented at the World Conference on Research Integrity, 2024. Presented as "Beyond Organisational Boundaries: Ecosystem and Researcher Influences on Integrity and Practice", 8th World Conference on Research Integrity, 5 June 2024.
Brooker, R. (2026). Why researchers cut corners: motivations, pressures, and personality in questionable research practicesin Research Integrity and Peer Review. Survey of over 3,000 researchers examining social and psychological drivers of QRP engagement — Mertonian norms, Big Five personality traits, and motivations. Found publication pressure and ego/esteem-related motivation positively associated with engagement, while norm commitment and traits like conscientiousness and emotional stability were protective.
02. academic freedom & constraints on knowledge [unresolved]
Investigating how self-censorship and constraints on inquiry limit the development of knowledge. Academic freedom is often treated as a settled institutional protection, but researchers routinely self-censor - avoiding topics, softening conclusions, or declining to pursue lines of inquiry - in response to pressures that go well beyond formal restrictions. This strand of the atlas examines who self-censors and why, how the gatekeepers of research communication (from PR professionals to university administrators) shape what gets supported or suppressed, and how academic freedom gets weighed against competing institutional priorities when the two come into tension.
In progress outputs:
Antecedents of self-censorship and attitudes toward academic freedom (in write-up). Primary survey data collected from researchers working across Europe and the Anglosphere, examining predictors of self-censorship and negative attitudes toward academic freedom, including political ideology and demographic factors.
How PR professionals decide what research to support and promote, with Dr David Schley (Academy of Mathematical Science). Funded by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR).
How administrators and faculty prioritise competing values against academic freedom, with Dr Thomas Prosser (Cardiff University). A conjoint experiment testing how academic freedom is traded off against other institutional priorities such as DEI and reputational concerns.