ArticleScience and engineering ethics2007
Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: evidence from ORI case files.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
43 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Practice to Policy: Promise and Constraints of Contemplative Ethics Interventions in Science.Mindfulness · 2026Article
- Research Misconduct in Academia: Examining the Views of Academics in a Public University in Ghana.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- Factors related to the severity of research misconduct administrative actions: An analysis of office of research integrity case summaries from 1993 to 2023.Accountability in research · 2025Article
- Article
- Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey.F1000Research · 2025Article
- Ethical decision-making and role conflict in managing a scientific laboratory.Accountability in research · 2024Article
- Institutional capacity to prevent and manage research misconduct: perspectives from Kenyan research regulators.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Article
- Article
- Can research integrity prevail in the market? Lessons from commissioned research organizations.Accountability in research · 2022Article
- University Teachers During the First Lockdown Due to SARS-CoV-2 in Italy: Stress, Issues and Perceptions of Misconduct.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceived publication pressure among academic researchers in Canada.PloS one · 2022Article
- Research integrity guidelines in the academic environment: The context of Brazilian institutions with retracted publications in health and life sciences.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022Article
- Experience and awareness of research integrity among Japanese physicians: a nationwide cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Assessing research misconduct in Iran: a perspective from Iranian medical faculty members.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Navigating Complex, Ethical Problems in Professional Life: a Guide to Teaching SMART Strategies for Decision-Making.Journal of academic ethics · 2021Article
- A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- How to Conduct Responsible Research: A Guide for Graduate Students.Current protocols · 2021Article
- Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) - a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- Survey study of research integrity officers' perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct.Research integrity and peer review · 2020Article
- Perceptions of occurrence of research misconduct and related factors among Kenyan investigators engaged in HIV research.Accountability in research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There has been relatively little empirical research into the causes of research misconduct. To begin to address this void, the authors collected data from closed case files of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). These data were in the form of statements extracted from ORI file documents including transcripts, investigative reports, witness statements, and correspondence. Researchers assigned these statements to 44 different concepts. These concepts were then analyzed using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. The authors chose a solution consisting of seven clusters: (1) personal and professional stressors, (2) organizational climate, (3) job insecurities, (4) rationalizations A, (5) personal inhibitions, (6) rationalizations B and, (7) personality factors. The authors discuss the implications of their findings for policy and for future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18038194What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.