Question category	Analytic (second-order) categories	Responses (first-order codes)	Examples
Form of misconduct (N = 202)	FFP	Plagiarism (N = 60, 30%)	“[…] a professor was using my unpublished material in an article without asking and without citing me properly.” (40–49, Female, Social and behavioral sciences, Associate professor, Permanent, 6–10 years)
		Falsification (N = 14, 7%)	“Most negative controls in an [PhD study] experiment were copy/paste of the same data.” (40–49, Male, Medical and life sciences, Associate professor, Temporary, 16 + years)
		Fabrication (N = 12, 6%)	“Making up data” (40–49, Female, Medical and life sciences, Associate professor, Permanent, 16 + years)
	QRP	Authorship (N = 47, 23%)	“Another supervisor claimed co-authorship without contributed to writing” (60–69, Male, Social and behavioral sciences, Professor, Permanent, 16 + years)
		Cherry picking (N = 29, 14%)	“Cherry picking of data based on pre-decided outcome” (40–49, Male, Social and behavioral sciences, Professor, Permanent, 11–15 years); “‘Fishing’ until a statistically significant finding was found” (30–39, Female, Social and behavioral sciences, Associate professor, Permanent, 6–10 years)
		Text recycling (N = 7, 3%)	“Several cases of self-plagiarism, but of a fairly innocent kind (paragraphs about methods)” (40–49, Male, Natural sciences, Professor, Permanent, 16 + years)
		Withholding data (N = 5, 2%)	“A project initiated by myself and my co-worker was 'stolen' aggressively by project collaborators after a while. Microscopic scientific photographs made by us were published without our consent. Access to certain resources were blocked.” (50–59, Female, Natural sciences, Professor, Permanent, 16 + years)
		Lack of approval (N = 5, 2%)	“Researcher started measurements (not invasive but taking pictures of the skin) but did not have all informed consent forms yet (though he would do this after measurements)” (30–39, Female, Medical and life sciences, Postdoc, Permanent, 6–10 years)
		False reporting of number of articles (N = 3, 1%)	“[…] putting the same articles as output on several, different grants. Even articles that I published as a post-doc in a different university ended up at this grant-evaluation, whereas I hadn't written them during my time at that university. And without my knowledge, by the way.” (30–39, Female, Social and behavioral sciences, Associate professor, Temporary, 11–15 years)
		Lack of citations (N = 3, 1%)	“A colleague in my department published a book without my 7 contributions. He praised the contributions before we became involved in a severe conflict.” (50–59, Female, Law arts and hum, associate professor, Permanent, 16 + years)
		Mistreatment of research subjects (N = 3, 1%)	“Mistreatment of research primates, resulting in severe psychological suffering of animals, physical illness & risks, including animals who died from it” (20–29, Female, Natural sciences, PhD student, Temporary, 6–10 years)
		Peer-review fraud (N = 2, 1%)	“Block paper as referee and then publish a paper oneself on the topic” (60–69, Male, Natural sciences, Scientific director, Permanent, 16 + years)
		Pressure by senior or study contractor (N = 2, 1%)	“I was working with a more senior professor to promote findings of some research through a prestigious impact/knowledge mobilisation event […].[…] he called me to a teleconference with the sponsor of the event and they both put a lot of pressure on me to allow the tool to be presented as effective.” (40–49, Female, Medical and life sciences, Associate professor, Permanent, 16 + years)
		Redundant publication (N = 2, 1%)	“Publishing two very similar articles under different titles” (50–59, Male, [field unknown], Professor, Permanent, 16 + years)
	No answer (N = 3, 1%)
How did you become aware of the misconduct (N = 194)	First-hand experience (N = 111, 57%)	Direct involvement or witness (N = 37, 19%)	“Discovered it myself in previous job as a Research Associate” (40–49, Social and behavioral sciences, Female, PhD student, Temporary, 16 + years)
		Reading text (N = 23, 12%)	“Read an early draft of an article” (40–49, Male, Social and behavioral sciences, Professor, Permanent, 11–15 years)
		Collaboration (N = 16, 8%)	“By working with the researcher in question” (20–29, Female, Social and behavioral sciences, PhD student, Temporary, 0–5 years)
		As an editor (N = 14, 7%)	“Being editor in chief of some journals I see many cases of misconduct every year. Usually through readers of the journal that recognize e.g. plagiarism or redundant publication” (60 +, Male, Natural sciences, Professor, Permanent, 16 + years)
		As a reviewer (N = 11, 6%)	“While reviewing a submission for a well-known journal” (30–39, Female, Law, arts and hum, Associate professor, Permanent, 6–10 years)
		Hearing a presentation (N 5, 3%)	“Presentation of a colleague within the department before Ph.D. defense.” (20–29, Male, Natural sciences, Ph.D. student, Temporary, 0–5 years)
	Second-hand experience (N = 75, 39%)	From colleague (N = 45, 23%)	“The person who discovered it (the person who misconducted was her team member) shared it with me and other colleagues” (20–29, Female, Medical and life sciences, Ph.D. student, Temporary, 0–5 years)
		From culprit (N = 10, 5%)	“Researcher happily telling me by email he had submitted a paper which I and he knew to contain major flaws” (40–49, Male, Natural sciences, Professor, Permanent, 16 + years)
		From peers (N = 6, 3%)	“Emails from colleagues abroad” (50–59, Male, Social and behaviour sciences, Associate professor, Permanent, 16 + years)
		From student (N = 6, 3%)	“I was consulted by a Ph.D. student who disagreed with his supervisor on the interpretation and presentation of results” (40–49, Male, Medial and life sciences, Associate professor, Permanent, 16 + years)
	No answer (N = 6, 3%)
How did you react (N = 205)	Specific reaction (N = 168, 77%)	Talk to superiors (N = 73, 33%)	“Order investigation to see if plagiarism also had been committed during the period that this colleague worked in our institution” (50–59, Male, Law, arts and hum, Professor, Permanent, 16 +)
		Confront culprits (N = 44, 20%)	“I told her it was not OK. When things escalated, I also told representative from the financier of the project and I also told the manager of the faculty.” (30–39, Female, Social and behavioral sciences, Professor, Permanent, 11–15 years)
		Discuss with colleagues (N = 21, 10%)	“Talked to two colleagues, one of whom had unsuccessfully addressed a similar issue with the research team in question earlier” (40–49, Male, Social and behavioral sciences, Professor, Permanent, 11–15)
		Conduct own investigation (N = 8, 4%)	“Check all the raw data in the daily logbooks” (50–59, Male, Medical and life sciences, Associate professor, Permanent, 16 + years) “Investigated contributions to volumes co-edited by me” (60–69, Female, Language, information and communication, Professor, Permanent, 16 + years)
		Change own practice (N = 7, 3%)	“We plead guilty and resynthesised most of the compounds presented in the paper” (40–49, Male, Natural sciences, Associate professor, Permanent, 16 + years)
		Withdraw from collaboration (N = 6, 3%)	“I gave up the article, because I didn't want to be involved in these kinds of practices: it wasn't worth it.” (20–29, Female, Medical and life sciences, Ph.D. student, Temporary, 0–5)
		Exerting voice (N = 6, 3%)	“Drew people's attention to it” (60 +, Female, Natural sciences, Professor, Temporary, 16 + years)
	No reaction (N = 37, 17%)		“I first demonstrated that it was not deserved, but because of university pressure, I gave up and allowed it” (60 +, Male, Social and behavioral sciences, Professor, Permanent, 16 + years)
	No answer (N = 14, 6%)
Was the instance reported? (N = 194)		Reporting (N = 89, 46%)	“Yes, but there was no ‘fingerprint’ proof, so that didn't help.” (60 +, Male, Natural sciences, Professor, Permanent, 16 + years)
		No reporting (N = 90, 46%)	“No. My department manager never takes any action on any problem.” (40–49, Female, Social and behavioral sciences, PhD student, Temporary, 0–5 years)
Did anything change? (N = 193)		No change (N = 87, 45%)	“No, this was a 'mistake' by a single individual, probably under time pressure. We (his colleagues) usually discuss all results openly, and we should have noticed this before.” (40–49, Male, Medical and life sciences, Associate professor, Temporary, 16 + years)
		Constructive chance (N = 52, 27%)	“Yes, the whole field changed its way of conducting research and dealing with data” (30–39, Female, Social and behavioural sciences, Associate professor, Temporary, 6–10 years)
		Negative change (N = 8, 4%)	“It caused misplaced insecurity in the physics community with regard to integrity matters.” (50–59, Male, Natural sciences, Professor, [position DNR], 16 + years) “I left academia because I've had enough. This situation has been going on for years, and I'm not able to change it” (30–39, Male, Social and behavioural sciences, left academia, 6–10 years)
	Don’t know (N = 15, 8%)
	No answer (N = 31, 16%)