Part I. Claims to knowledge require justification. In science, such justification is made possible by the ability to reproduce or replicate experiments, thereby confirming their validity. Additionally, reproducibility serves as a self-correcting tool in science as it weeds out faulty experiments. It is therefore essential that experimental studies be replicated and confirmed. Recently, attempts to reproduce studies in several fields have failed, leading to what has been referred to as "a crisis of reproducibility." This crisis is largely a result of the current culture in the scientific world. Specifically, it is a result of a system that incentivizes individual success in the form of publications in high-impact journals over collaboration and careful conductance of research. This environment contributes to the crisis of reproducibility by increasing biases, incentivizing researchers to engage in manipulative statistics, decreasing quality control and transparency, and increasing the likelihood of researchers engaging in fraudulent behavior. Possible solutions to the problem of irreproducibility could tackle individual factors. A more prudent approach would be to focus on changing the current culture in the scientific world. Increased transparency had been suggested as a way to solve this problem. There is currently a movement advocating for increased transparency in science through "open science." Part II. Retraction of scientific papers due to evidence of research misconduct is on the rise, having increased tenfold from 2000 to 2009. Previous work on this topic focused on published retraction notices, using notices to identify the percent of retracted articles that were caused by research misconduct. This study utilized a different approach. Using the Office of Research Integrity database, we first identified publications that resulted from research misconduct. We then searched those articles to determine whether they were indeed retracted. Once retraction notices were identified, they were scored based on scoring elements reflecting guidelines for transparency. Lastly, we investigated whether a correlation exists between the quality of a retraction notice and journal impact factor. Our findings suggest that 21% of papers containing data derived from scientific misconduct are not retracted. Moreover, the quality of retraction notices varies, with some elements more likely to be present than others. No significant correlation between retraction notices and journal impact factor was found.

A mail survey of a nationwide sample of department heads in university departments of mechanical engineering, physiology, and psychology was conducted, in order to determine what these departments were doing to educate their Ph.D. students in research ethics. Department heads were also asked to supply names of the Ph.D. students in their departments. Based on the survey responses, departments within each discipline were then divided into those placing a relatively high versus low emphasis on teaching research ethics. Random samples of students in each emphasis category for each discipline were then surveyed and asked to rate the seriousness of 44 different hypothetical acts of misconduct, to determine if students from departments placing relatively higher emphasis on research ethics education had stricter standards than those from departments placing relatively lower emphasis on research ethics education. The two major findings of the study were (a) the majority of departments in physiology and psychology require some form of formal education in research ethics of their Ph.D. students, but only a very small percentage of mechanical engineering departments require such training; (b) the present study found no evidence that education of Ph.D. students in research ethics has any effect on the strictness of their stated ethical standards.

Diese Dissertation aus der Sparte der Reflexiven Bibliometrie erforscht die Rückwirkungen der Verwendung von quantitativen Indikatoren in der Wissenschaftsevaluation auf die Wissensproduktion und Forschungsqualität in der Astronomie. Eine qualitative Analyse der strukturellen Bedingungen der akamdeischen Astronomie anhand des Rational Choice Frameworks führen zur Beobachtung eines "Evaluation Gap" zwischen dem, was Indikatoren messen und dem, was Forscher unter Forschungsqualität verstehen. Die Analyse offenbart weiters einen Balanceakt, in dem Astronomen zwischen Publikationsdruck und Forschungsintegrität Kompromisse finden. Weiterführende quantitative Untersuchungen unter Einbezug von Organisational Culture Theories und Self-Determination Theory zeigen, dass kontrollierte Formen von Motivation zu einem erhöhten Publikationsdruck und wissenschaftlichem Fehlverhalten führen, während autonome Formen von Motivation das Gegenteil bewirken. Schließlich skizziert die Arbeit Wege zur Transformation der Forschungskultur hin zu mehr Vielfalt und Partizipation, einschließlich der Einführung offener Wissensmanagement-Infrastrukturen und kontinuierlicher, reflexiver Evaluationsprozesse. / This dissertation from the field of Reflexive Bibliometrics, investigates the constitutive effects of utilizing quantitative metrics in research evaluation on knowledge production and research quality in astronomy. Embedded in the Rational Choice Framework to analyze the structural conditions within academic astronomy, a qualitative analysis reveals an "Evaluation Gap" between what metrics measure and researchers' perceptions of research quality. Furthermore, the analysis unveils a balancing act where astronomers navigate compromises between publication pressures and research integrity. Subsequent quantitative analyses, incorporating Organizational Culture Theories and Self-Determination Theory, demonstrate that controlled forms of motivation exacerbate publication pressure and scientific misconduct, while autonomous motivations yield contrasting effects. Lastly, the study outlines pathways towards transforming research culture towards greater diversity and participation, including the adoption of open knowledge management infrastructures and continuous, reflexive evaluation processes.