International Journal of Information Science and Management (IJISM)

Analysis of the Dimensions and Indicators of Scientific Populism: Developing a New Concept Based on a Qualitative Study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Oranus Tajedini 1
Ali Sadatmoosavi 2
Raziye Valinejad 3
Ali Akbar Khasseh 4
Mahdiyeh Khazaneha 5
Ali Shabani 6

1 Associate Prof., Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

2 Associate Prof., Department of Medical Library and Information Sciences, Faculty of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman

3 M.A. in Knowledge and Information Science, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

4 Associate Prof., Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

5 Assistant Prof., Neurology Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran

6 Assistant Prof., Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22034/ijism.2025.2030441.1502
Abstract
 
Throughout the evolution of scientific research, various types of populism have been identified. One of the critical terms in the scientific research lexicon is scientific populism, which refers to instances that extend beyond the usual plagiarism. Scientific populism is often associated with scientific immorality and deceptive practices in scientific environments. Given the prevalence of research fraud and immoralities in academic settings, this study aims to introduce and explain the dimensions and characteristics of scientific populism as a new concept. This study employed a qualitative method and was grounded in theory. The research population included the top Iranian researchers listed in the Essential Science Indicators. Participants were selected through sequential snowball sampling, and the data were collected through in-depth interviews. Findings were presented based on the participants’ perception, understanding, and interpretation, causal conditions, intervening conditions, strategies, and the consequences of scientific populism. To this end, the data were divided into codes and themes. The resulting themes were then used to extract related categories and subcategories associated with the phenomenon. Results showed that the process of scientific populism can be understood based on logical principles, because the anomalies in the scientific and academic settings originate from factors such as disbelief in the system of creation, diminution of the principles of research ethics, lack of an intelligent system for detecting violations in scientific productions, dominance of personal interest over regulations and rules, inefficient employment regulations, poor review and assessment protocols in some journals, and resort to scientific immorality to gain promotion.
 

Keywords

Populism
Scientific Populism
Plagiarism
Scientific Deception
Research Misconduct

Subjects

Babaii, E. & Nejadghanbar, H. (2017). Plagiarism among Iranian graduate students of language studies: Perspectives and causes. Ethics & Behavior, 27(3), 240-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1138864
Batane, T. (2010). Turning to Turnitin to fight plagiarism among university students. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 1-12.
Brownson, R. C. (2017). Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. Oxford University Press.
Bugaric, B. (2008). Populism, liberal democracy, and the rule of law. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 41(2), 191-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2008.03.006
Charmaz, K. & Belgrave, L. L. (2007). Grounded theory. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (pp. 2023-2027). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosg070
Choudhry, H. S., Anur, S. M., Choudhry, H. S., Kokush, E. M., Patel, A. M. & Fang, C. H. (2024). Retracted publications in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery: What mistakes are being made? OTO Open, 8(2), e157. https://doi.org/10.1002/oto2.157
Conniff, M. L., Roberts, K., Basurto, J., Drake, P. W. & Ellner, S. (2012). Populism in Latin America. The University of Alabama Press.
de Vrieze, J. (2021). A large survey finds questionable research practices are common. Science, 373(6552), 265. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.373.6552.265
Ehrich, J., Howard, S. J., Mu, C. & Bokosmaty, S. (2016). A comparison of Chinese and Australian university students' attitudes towards plagiarism. Studies in Higher Education, 41(2), 231-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.927850
Ellen, D., Day, S. & Davies, C. (2018). Scientific examination of documents: Methods and techniques. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429491917
Erman, I. (2018). Autobiography of a ‘Living Plagiary’: Vasilii rozanov’s secret dostoevskian genealogy. AvtobiografiЯ, 7, 171-190. https://doi.org/10.25430/2281-6992/v7-171-190 
Featherstone, D. (2015). Revolt on the Clyde side? Space, politics, and populism. Geoforum, 62, 193–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.04.007
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
Gullifer, J. M. & Tyson, G. A. (2014). Who has read the policy on plagiarism? Unpacking students' understanding of plagiarism. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1202-1218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.777412
Hamner, W. M. & Robison, B. H. (1992). In situ observations of giant appendicularians in Monterey Bay. Deep-Sea Research Part A. Oceanographic Research Papers, 39(7-8), 1299-1313. https://doi.org/10.1016/0198-0149(92)90070-A
Hamrahi, A., Pournaghi, R. & Matlabi, D. (2023). Conceptual framework of components and indicators of the scholarly publication system: Systematic review. International Journal of Information Science and Management (IJISM), 21(4), 103-130. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijism.2023.1977992.0  or https://dor.org/20.1001.1.20088302.2023.21.4.6.2
Han, S., Li, K., Gao, S., Zhang, Y., Yang, X., Li, C., Wang, Y., Li, L., Zhao, Y., & Wang, Z. (2023). Research misconduct knowledge and associated factors among nurses in China: A national cross-sectional survey. Applied Nursing Research: ANR, 69, 151658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2022.151658
Hancevic, P., Cont, W. & Navajas, F. (2016). Energy populism and household welfare. Energy Economics, 56, 464–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.03.027
Hawkins, K. A., Carlin, R. E., Littvay, L. & Kaltwasser, C. R. (Eds.). (2018). The Ideational Approach to Populism: Concept, Theory, and Analysis. Routledge.
Heitman, E. & Litewka, S. (2011). International Perspectives on Plagiarism and Considerations for Teaching International Trainees. Urologic Oncology, 29(1), 104-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.09.014
Heuritsch, J. (2023). Reflecting on motivations: How reasons to publish affect research behaviour in astronomy. PLoS ONE, 18(4), e0281613. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0281613
Hsieh, H. F. & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Jamali, R., Ghazinoory, S. & Sadeghi, M. (2014). Plagiarism and ethics of knowledge: Evidence from international scientific papers1. Journal of Information Ethics, 23(1), 101-110.
Kohler, S. & Koinig, I. (2023). The effect of science-related populism on vaccination attitudes and decisions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 46(1-2), 229-238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-022-00333-2
Li, M. & Shen, Z. (2024) (Editorial). Science map of academic misconduct. The Innovation, 5(2), 100593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xinn.2024.100593
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Marsh, R. L. & Landau, J. D. (1995). Item availability in cryptomnesia: Assessing its role in two paradigms of unconscious plagiarism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(6), 1568. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0278-7393.21.6.1568
Matsen, E., Natvik, G. & Torvik, R. (2016). Petro populism. Journal of Development Economics, 118, 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2015.08.010
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mede, N. G. & Schäfer, M. S. (2020). Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science, 29(5), 473-491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520924259
Mede, N. G. & Schäfer, M. S. (2022). Science-related populism declining during the COVID-19 pandemic: A panel survey of the Swiss population before and after the Coronavirus outbreak. Public Understanding of Science, 31(2), 211-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211056871
Mede, N. G., Schäfer, M. S. & Füchslin, T. (2021). The SciPop Scale for Measuring Science-Related Populist Attitudes in Surveys: Development, Testing, and Validation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 33(2), 273-293. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-197157
Mede, N. G., Schäfer, M. S., Metag, J. & Klinger, K. (2022). Who supports science-related populism? A nationally representative survey on the prevalence and explanatory factors of populist attitudes toward science in Switzerland. Plos One, 17(8), e0271204. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271204
Mills, J., Bonner, A. & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500103
Pan, P. (2020). Ethics in research and publication. Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons, 25(6), 349–351. https://doi.org/10.4103/jiaps.jiaps_219_19
Park, C. (2003). In other (people's) words: Plagiarism by university students--literature and lessons. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471-488. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930301677
Renard, L. (1999). Cut and paste 101: Plagiarism and the net. Educational Leadership, 57(4), 38-42. Retrieved from https://web.mit.edu/21w.784/www/BD%20Supplementals/Materials/Unit%20Two/Plagiarism/cut-n-paste%20ethics.pdf
Sade, R. M., Canver, C., D’Amico, T., Ellis, J., Fenton, K., Freeman, R. & Ohman, L. (2016). Sanctions for research misconduct in cardiothoracic surgery journals. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 152 (3), 661-663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.06.044
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Inc.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques & procedures for developing grounded theory. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
 
Stretton, S., Bramich, N. J., Keys, J. R., Monk, J. A., Ely, J. A., Haley, C., Woolley, M. J. & Woolley, K. L. (2012). Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: A systematic, retrospective study. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 28(10), 1575–1583. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2012.728131
Tang, B. L. (2023). Nature and Causes of Questionable Research Practices and Research Misconduct from a Philosophy of Science Perspective. Ethics & Behavior, 34(4), 294–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2023.2208245
Tijdink, J. K., Verbeke, R. & Smulders, Y. M. (2014). Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(5), 64-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264614552421
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
Van Noorden, R. (2023). More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023, setting a new record. Nature, 624(7992), 479-481. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8
Vehviläinen, S., Löfström, E. & Nevgi, A. (2018). Dealing with plagiarism in the academic community: Emotional engagement and moral distress. Higher Education, 75(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0112-6
Wills, J. (2015). Populism, localism, and the geography of democracy. Geo Forum, 62, 188-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.04.006
Yadav, S., Rawal, G. & Baxi, M. (2016). Plagiarism is a serious scientific misconduct. International Journal of Health Sciences and Research, 6(2), 364-366. Retrieved from https://www.ijhsr.org/IJHSR_Vol.6_Issue.2_Feb2016/52.pdf
Zhu, H., Jia, Y. & Leung, S. W. (2024). Citations of microRNA biomarker articles that were retracted: A systematic review. JAMA Network Open, 7(3), e243173. htpps://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.3173    
 
 
International Journal of Information Science and Management (IJISM)
Volume 23, Issue 3
Summer 2025
Pages 131-153

  • Receive Date 29 May 2024
  • Revise Date 28 May 2025
  • Accept Date 28 May 2025

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us

Copyright Ownership