In this paper, we explore different possible explanations for research misconduct (especially falsification and fabrication), and investigate whether they are compatible. We suggest that to explain research misconduct, we should pay attention to three factors: (1) the beliefs and desires of the misconductor, (2) contextual affordances, (3) and unconscious biases or influences. We draw on the three different narratives (individual, institutional, system of science) of research misconduct as proposed by Sovacool to review six different explanations. Four theories start from the individual: Rational Choice theory, Bad Apple theory, General Strain Theory and Prospect Theory. Organizational Justice Theory focuses on institutional factors, while New Public Management targets the system of science. For each theory, we illustrate the kinds of facts that must be known in order for explanations based on them to have minimal plausibility. We suggest that none can constitute a full explanation. Finally, we explore how the different possible explanations interrelate. We find that they are compatible, with the exception of explanations based on Rational Choice Theory and Prospect Theory respectively, which are incompatible with one another. For illustrative purposes we examine the case of Diederik Stapel.

在本文中，我们探索了对研究不当行为（尤其是伪造和捏造）的不同可能解释，并研究了它们是否兼容。我们建议，在解释研究不端行为时，应注意三个因素：（1）不端行为者的信念和愿望，（2）语境承受能力，（3）和无意识的偏见或影响。我们借鉴了Sovacool提出的研究不当行为的三种不同叙述（个人，机构，科学体系）来回顾六种不同的解释。四个理论从个人开始：理性选择理论，坏苹果理论，总应变理论和预期理论。组织公正理论侧重于制度因素，而新公共管理则针对科学系统。对于每种理论，我们举例说明了必须知道的各种事实，以便基于这些事实的解释具有最小的可信度。我们建议没有一个可以构成完整的解释。最后，我们探讨了不同的可能解释如何相互关联。我们发现它们是兼容的，除了分别基于理性选择理论和预期理论的解释彼此不兼容之外。为了说明的目的，我们研究Diederik Stapel的情况。彼此不兼容。为了说明的目的，我们研究Diederik Stapel的情况。彼此不兼容。为了说明的目的，我们研究Diederik Stapel的情况。