Researchers in the US are more likely to report results that support their hypothesis in states where academics have higher publication rates, an analysis suggests. (THE)

Academia’s publish or perish culture could be driving researchers to make their results look positive in attempt to compete in these productive environments, adds the study.

The study, published yesterday in the open-access journals PLoS ONE, analysed over 1300 papers across all disciplines where the principle author was US based. Using data from the Nation Science Foundation, an independent federal science funding agency in Arlington, Virginia, the study looked to see if there is a link between the papers’ findings and the productivity of the state that the lead author is based in.

Papers are more likely to support the tested hypothesis if the authors are based in more productive states, it says.

For example, in less productive states including Mississippi and Nevada, less than half of all the papers reported positive results. In contrast, in highly productive states, including Michigan and Ohio, between 95% and 100% of the papers showed positive results.

The study notes, however, that it is not clear if scientists are making their results look positive by simply writing the papers differently or by tweaking results.

“The outcome of an experiment depends on many factors, but the productivity of the US state of the researcher should not, in theory, be one of them,” explains Daniele Fanelli, who researches science policy and misconduct at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and is lead author of the study.

He adds that the study ”cannot exclude that researchers in the more productive states are smarter and better equipped, and thus more successful, but this is unlikely to fully explain the marked trend observed in this study.”