Irresponsible research practices damaging the value of science has been an increasing concern among researchers, but previous work failed to estimate the prevalence of all forms of irresponsible research behavior. Additionally, these analyses have not included articles published in the last decade from 2011 to 2020. This meta-analysis provides an updated meta-analysis that calculates the pooled estimates of research misconduct (RM) and questionable research practices (QRPs), and explores the factors associated with the prevalence of these issues. The estimates, committing RM concern at least 1 of FFP (falsification, fabrication, plagiarism) and (unspecified) QRPs concern 1 or more QRPs, were 2.9% (95% CI 2.1–3.8%) and 12.5% (95% CI 10.5–14.7%), respectively. In addition, 15.5% (95% CI 12.4–19.2%) of researchers witnessed others who had committed at least 1 RM, while 39.7% (95% CI 35.6–44.0%) were aware of others who had used at least 1 QRP. The results document that response proportion, limited recall period, career level, disciplinary background and locations all affect significantly the prevalence of these issues. This meta-analysis addresses a gap in existing meta-analyses and estimates the prevalence of all forms of RM and QRPs, thus providing a better understanding of irresponsible research behaviors.

损害科学价值的不负责任的研究实践越来越受到研究人员的关注，但之前的工作未能估计所有形式的不负责任研究行为的普遍性。此外，这些分析不包括从 2011 年到 2020 年的过去十年中发表的文章。该元分析提供了更新的元分析，计算了研究不端行为 (RM) 和有问题的研究实践 (QRP) 的汇总估计值，并探讨了与这些问题的普遍性相关的因素。估计 RM 涉及至少 1 个 FFP（伪造、制造、剽窃）和（未指明的）QRP 涉及 1 个或多个 QRP，分别为 2.9%（95% CI 2.1-3.8%）和 12.5%（95% CI 10.5-） 14.7%），分别。此外，15.5% (95% CI 12.4–19. 2%) 的研究人员目睹了其他人至少使用了 1 RM，而 39.7% (95% CI 35.6–44.0%) 知道其他人至少使用了 1 个 QRP。结果表明，回应比例、有限回忆期、职业水平、学科背景和地点都显着影响了这些问题的普遍性。该荟萃分析解决了现有荟萃分析中的空白，并估计了所有形式的 RM 和 QRP 的流行程度，从而更好地了解不负责任的研究行为。