  Recent research in the field of reflexive metrics have studied the emergence
and consequences of evaluation gaps in science. The concept of evaluation gaps
captures potential discrepancies between what researchers value about their
research, in particular research quality, and what metrics measure. As a
result, scientists may experience anomie and adopt innovative ways to cope.
These often value quantity over quality and may even compromise research
integrity. A consequence of such gaps may therefore be research misconduct and
a decrease in research quality. In the language of rational choice theory, an
evaluation gap persists if motivational factors arising out of the internal
component of an actors situation are incongruent with those arising out of the
external components. The aim of this research is therefore to study and compare
autonomous and controlled motivations to become an astronomer, to do research
in astronomy and to publish scientific papers. Moreover, we study how these
different motivational factors affect publication pressure, the experience of
organisational justice and the observation of research misconduct. In summary,
we find evidence for an evaluation gap and that controlled motivational factors
arising from evaluation procedures based on publication record drives up
publication pressure, which, in turn, was found to increase the likelihood of
perceived frequency of misbehaviour.
