Arianna Martinelli’s research while affiliated with Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies and other places

This paper investigates the growing evidence of research-related misconduct by developing and testing a theoretical framework. We study the deep causes of misconduct by asking whether the perception of an erosion of the core academic values, formally an ideology-based psychological contract breach, is associated with research-related misconduct. We test our framework by examining the use of Sci-Hub and providing empirical evidence that the loss of faith in scientific research sparkles research-related misconduct against publishers. Based on a stratified sample of 2849 academics working in 30 institutions in 6 European countries, we find that ideology-based psychological contract breach explains Sci-Hub usage, also when controlling for other possible motivations. The magnitude of the effect depends on contextual and demographic characteristics. Females, foreign, and tenured scholars are less likely to download papers illegally when experiencing a contract breach of academic values. Our results suggest that policies restoring academic values might also address research-related misconduct.

This paper presents experimental evidence on the impact of opposite copyright lobbies' narratives on scholars' views toward the publishing system. We conduct the empirical analysis by running a large-scale information provision experiment on a representative population of European scholars. Scholars were individually randomized into a control group or one of two promotional videos presenting opposite lobbying interests. The first video presents the publisher's narrative, featuring publishers as innovative firms and the guardians of ethics and scientific advance. While the second presents copyright activists' narrative featuring publishers as greedy and unethical. We document scholars' general discontent towards the publishing system. However, both lobbyist narratives change perceptions towards their cause. Overall, publishers' lobbyist information has a slightly smaller persuasive effect, linked to a small part of the population that exhibits a strong emotional reaction. Additional information is accompanied by a slight increase in the probability of taking the action of being informed, especially when we control for the scholar's quality.

This paper bridges the organisational psychology and the economics of science literature to examine the role of ideology-based psychological contract breach in eliciting mild deviant behaviour in academia. We provide empirical evidence of how the deterioration of academic values related to the diffusion of the “publish or perish” paradigm sparkles copyright violations through Sci-Hub. Based on a representative sample of 2849 academics working in top institutions in 6 European countries, we find that ideology-based psychological contract breach explains Sci-Hub usage, also when controlling for other trivial motivations. The magnitude of the effect depends on contextual and demographic characteristics. Females, foreign and tenured scholars are less likely to respond with digital piracy when experiencing a contract breach of academic values. Our results contribute to prevention policy design, highlighting how policies restoring academic values might also address academic piracy.