ArticlemBio2013
Males are overrepresented among life science researchers committing scientific misconduct.
Article in mBio, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcome switching in randomized controlled oncology trials reporting on surrogate endpoints: a cross-sectional analysis.Scientific reports · 2017Pooled it
- Meta-assessment of bias in science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Pooled it
- Shaping the Field: A Review of the Use of Theory in Research on Research Integrity.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Review
- Article
- Can I trust this paper?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Navigating the ethical world of clinical researchers in China: challenges and pathways for improvement.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- 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
- Current situation and influence factors of scientific integrity in China: A multicenter survey.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2024Article
- Women Are Underrepresented Among Authors of Retracted Publications: Retrospective Study of 134 Medical Journals.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Article
- Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023Article
- Article
- Cross-cultural differences in retracted publications of male and female from a global perspective.Scientometrics · 2023Article
- How to Improve Research Funding in Academia? Lessons From the COVID-19 Crisis.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022Article
- Prevalence of responsible research practices among academics in The Netherlands.F1000Research · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) - a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- Retraction: The "Other Face" of Research Collaboration?Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledA review of the United States Office of Research Integrity annual reports identified 228 individuals who have committed misconduct, of which 94% involved fraud. Analysis of the data by career stage and gender revealed that misconduct occurred across the entire career spectrum from trainee to senior scientist and that two-thirds of the individuals found to have committed misconduct were male. This exceeds the overall proportion of males among life science trainees and faculty. These observations underscore the need for additional efforts to understand scientific misconduct and to ensure the responsible conduct of research. IMPORTANCE: As many of humanity's greatest problems require scientific solutions, it is critical for the scientific enterprise to function optimally. Misconduct threatens the scientific enterprise by undermining trust in the validity of scientific findings. We have examined specific demographic characteristics of individuals found to have committed research misconduct in the life sciences. Our finding that misconduct occurs across all stages of career development suggests that attention to ethical aspects of the conduct of science should not be limited to those in training. The observation that males are overrepresented among those who commit misconduct implies a gender difference that needs to be better understood in any effort to promote research integrity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.