ArticleBMC medical ethics2014
Misconduct in research: a descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrity in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review of Studies in China.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Pooled it
- Experiences of researchers in navigating applied research in the MENA region: an exploratory online cross-sectional survey.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Research Misconduct in Academia: Examining the Views of Academics in a Public University in Ghana.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- Indirect feedback as a tool for identifying academic misconduct: a cross-sectional multicentral study among medical students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Are questionable research practices considered a successful career strategy? A novel implementation of the implicit association test.Scientometrics · 2025Article
- Prevalence and factors associated with research misconduct among faculty in selected public universities in Eastern Uganda: a cross-sectional study.Discover education · 2025Article
- Current situation and influence factors of scientific integrity in China: A multicenter survey.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2024Article
- Article
- Institutional capacity to prevent and manage research misconduct: perspectives from Kenyan research regulators.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Article
- Knowledge, opinions and experiences of researchers regarding ethical regulation of biomedical research in Benin: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Reliability and validation of an attitude scale regarding responsible conduct in research.PloS one · 2022Article
- Fostering research integrity in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges, opportunities, and recommendations.The Pan African medical journal · 2022Article
- Essential signals in publication trends and collaboration patterns in global Research Integrity and Research Ethics (RIRE).Scientometrics · 2022Article
- Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers' Perceptions in Spain.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Institutional Approaches to Research Integrity in Ghana.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Review
- Research Integrity Among PhD Students at the Faculty of Medicine: A Comparison of Three Scandinavian Universities.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2020Article
- Perceptions of occurrence of research misconduct and related factors among Kenyan investigators engaged in HIV research.Accountability in research · 2020Article
- Perceptions of plagiarism by biomedical researchers: an online survey in Europe and China.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Knowledge and attitudes of physicians toward research ethics and scientific misconduct in Lebanon.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Plagiarism as Reported by Participants Completing the AuthorAID MOOC on Research Writing.Science and engineering ethics · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMisconduct in research tarnishes the reputation, credibility and integrity of research institutions. Studies on research or scientific misconduct are still novel in developing countries. In this study, we report on the attitudes, perceptions and factors related to the work environment thought to be associated with research misconduct in a group of researchers in Nigeria - a developing country.
methodA survey of researchers attending a scientific conference was done using an adapted Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R). Initial descriptive analysis of individual items using frequencies and proportions for all quantitative data was performed. Thereafter, Likert scale responses were transformed into dichotomous responses. Fisher exact test was performed for associations as appropriate. A two-tailed p-value of less than 0.05 was accepted as significant.
resultHalf of the respondents (50.4%) were aware of a colleague who had committed misconduct, defined as "non-adherence to rules, regulations, guidelines, and commonly accepted professional codes or norms". Over 88% of the researchers were concerned about the perceived amount of misconduct prevalent in their institution and 96.2% believed that one or more forms of scientific misconduct had occurred in their workplace. More than half (52.7%) rated the severity of penalties for scientific misconduct in their work environment as low. Furthermore¸ the majority (56.1%) were of the view that the chance of getting caught for scientific misconduct in their work environment was low.
conclusionResearchers in Nigeria perceive that scientific misconduct is commonplace in their institutions, but are however worried about the negative effects of scientific misconduct on the credibility of scientific research. We recommend that researchers be empowered with the knowledge and virtues necessary for self-regulation that advance research integrity. Research institutions should however also step into their role of fostering a responsible research ethic and discouraging misconduct.
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.