IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

How prevalent is academic misconduct in management research?


  • Hopp, Christian
  • Hoover, Gary A.


We survey 1215 management researchers, including editors, researchers, and reviewers, about their views and experiences with four types of academic misconduct: plagiarism, self-plagiarism, coercive citations, and questionable reviewing practices. Management researchers hold strict views on plagiarism, though editors report on frequent instances encountered. We find that many management researchers consider self-plagiarism acceptable. There is also a high percentage of editors who report on authors being coerced to add citations of reviewers or journals to their submission. Similarly prevalent is so-called “honorary authorship,” where colleagues and supervisors who did not take part in the work are added as co-authors. Lastly, nearly half of the editors who responded report having witnessed conflicts of interest in peer reviewing. We conclude that the current system of peer reviewing is in need of change, and we discuss possible ramifications to overcome the persistence of academic misconduct.

Suggested Citation

  • Hopp, Christian & Hoover, Gary A., 2017. "How prevalent is academic misconduct in management research?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 73-81.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:80:y:2017:i:c:p:73-81
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.07.003

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Jann, Ben, 2008. "Multinomial goodness–of–fit: Large–sample tests with survey design correction and exact tests for small samples," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 8(2), pages 1-23.
    2. Tsui, Anne S. & Lewin, Arie Y. & Schminke, Marshall & Ambrose, Maureen, 2014. "Retraction statement for ‘Ethics and Integrity of the Publishing Process: Myths, Facts, and a Roadmap’ by Marshall Schminke and Maureen L. Ambrose," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 157-162, March.
    3. Schminke, Marshall & Ambrose, Maureen L., 2011. "RETRACTED - Ethics and Integrity in the Publishing Process: Myths, Facts, and a Roadmap," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 397-406, November.
    4. Gary Hoover, 2006. "A Game-Theoretic Model of Plagiarism," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 34(4), pages 449-454, December.
    5. Walter Enders & Gary Hoover, 2006. "Plagiarism in the Economics Profession: A Survey," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(5), pages 92-107.
    6. Gary A. Hoover, 2004. "Whose Line Is It? Plagiarism in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(2), pages 487-493, June.
    7. N/A, 2015. "Retraction Notice," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 29(2), pages 194-194, May.
    8. Anne S. Tsui & Arie Y. Lewin & Marshall Schminke & Maureen Ambrose, 2014. "Retraction statement for ‘Ethics and Integrity of the Publishing Process: Myths, Facts, and a Roadmap’ by Marshall Schminke and Maureen L. Ambrose," Management and Organization Review, The International Association for Chinese Management Research, vol. 10(1), pages 157-162, March.
    9. Benson Honig & Joseph Lampel & Donald Siegel & Paul Drnevich, 2014. "Ethics in the Production and Dissemination of Management Research: Institutional Failure or Individual Fallibility?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 118-142, January.
    10. Daniel G. Arce & Walter Enders & Gary A. Hoover, 2008. "Plagiarism And Its Impact On The Economics Profession," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 231-243, July.
    11. Woodside, Arch G., 2009. "Journal and author impact metrics: An editorial," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 1-4, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. S. P. J. M. Horbach & W. Halffman, 2019. "The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 339-373, January.
    2. Wilhite, Allen & Fong, Eric A. & Wilhite, Seth, 2019. "The influence of editorial decisions and the academic network on self-citations and journal impact factors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1513-1522.

    More about this item


    Publication ethics; Plagiarism; Peer review system;

    JEL classification:

    • K30 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - General
    • A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:80:y:2017:i:c:p:73-81. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.