ReviewAccountability in research2013
Understanding research misconduct: a comparative analysis of 120 cases of professional wrongdoing.
Review in Accountability in research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Favorable research environment is a key determinant of research integrity according to a ten-country survey across Central and Eastern Europe.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Navigating the ethical world of clinical researchers in China: challenges and pathways for improvement.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- A model of the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2024Article
- Retraction of biomedical publications with Tunisian affiliation: causes, characteristics, and legislation regarding breaches of scientific integrity.The Pan African medical journal · 2024Article
- The Interrelationship of Reflexivity, Sensitivity and Integrity in Conducting Interviews.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- University Teachers During the First Lockdown Due to SARS-CoV-2 in Italy: Stress, Issues and Perceptions of Misconduct.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Reliability and validation of an attitude scale regarding responsible conduct in research.PloS one · 2022Article
- Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen.Environmental sciences Europe · 2022Article
- 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
- Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers' Perceptions in Spain.Science and engineering ethics · 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 Work-Related Stress and Ethical Misconduct Amongst Non-tenured Researchers in Italy.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Sexual Violation of Patients by Physicians: A Mixed-Methods, Exploratory Analysis of 101 Cases.Sexual abuse : a journal of research and treatment · 2019Article
- In Their Own Words: Research Misconduct from the Perspective of Researchers in Malaysian Universities.Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
- Quality of randomized controlled trials of new generation antidepressants and antipsychotics identified in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI): a literature and telephone interview study.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- The Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program: Description and Preliminary Outcomes.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2018Article
- Five Dimensions of Research Ethics: A Stakeholder Framework for Creating a Climate of Research Integrity.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2018Article
- The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles.Current sociology. La Sociologie contemporaine · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We analyzed 40 cases of falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism (FFP), comparing them to other types of wrongdoing in research (n=40) and medicine (n=40). Fifty-one variables were coded from an average of 29 news or investigative reports per case. Financial incentives, oversight failures, and seniority correlate significantly with more serious instances of FFP. However, most environmental variables were nearly absent from cases of FFP and none were more strongly present in cases of FFP than in other types of wrongdoing. Qualitative data suggest FFP involves thinking errors, poor coping with research pressures, and inadequate oversight. We offer recommendations for education, institutional investigations, policy, and further research.
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.