ReviewMedicine, health care, and philosophy2015
Scientific misconduct: a perspective from India.
Review in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Integrity in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review of Studies in China.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Pooled it
- Interventions to promote medical research integrity: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Indirect feedback as a tool for identifying academic misconduct: a cross-sectional multicentral study among medical students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
- Current situation and influence factors of scientific integrity in China: A multicenter survey.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2024Article
- A third reich approach by the Medical Council of India.Journal of postgraduate medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Misconduct in medical science research is an unfortunate reality. Science, for the most part, operates on the basis of trust. Researchers are expected to carry out their work and report their findings honestly. But, sadly, that is not how science always gets done. Reports keep surfacing from various countries about work being plagiarised, results which were doctored and data fabricated. Scientific misconduct is scourge afflicting the field of science, unfortunately with little impact in developing countries like India especially in health care services. A recent survey and a meta-analysis suggest that the few cases that do float up represents only tip of a large iceberg. This paper therefore highlights reasons for misconduct with steps that can be taken to reduce misconduct. Also the paper throws light on Indian scenario in relation to misconduct.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25316327What 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.