ArticleAccountability in research2015
An international study of research misconduct policies.
Article in Accountability in research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 180 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of retracted articles in critical care medicine.British journal of anaesthesia · 2022Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Retractions in the Field of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia.Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2022Pooled it
- Reproducibility in biomedical research.Nature medicine · 2026Review
- Retractions in Rheumatology: Trends, Causes, and Implications for Research Integrity.Arthritis care & research · 2026Article
- Hallucinated citations produced by generative artificial intelligence may constitute research misconduct when citations function as data in scholarly papers.Accountability in research · 2026Article
- What Retractions Tell Us About Research Integrity in Mexican Academia.Developing world bioethics · 2026Article
- Favorable research environment is a key determinant of research integrity according to a ten-country survey across Central and Eastern Europe.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Trials and tribulations of responsible people trying to uphold scientific standards.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- University rankings: Time to reconsider.BioImpacts : BI · 2025Article
- A model of the interrelationship between research ethics and research integrity.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2024Article
- The risk of normative bias in reporting empirical research: lessons learned from prenatal screening studies about the prominence of acknowledged limitations.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2023Article
- A study on the content of integrity policies and research integrity management in Chinese universities.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023Article
- Empowering the Research Community to Investigate Misconduct and Promote Research Integrity and Ethics: New Regulation in Scandinavia.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Do biomedical researchers differ in their perceptions of plagiarism across Europe? Findings from an online survey among leading universities.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Preventing fraud in biomedical research.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
- Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen.Environmental sciences Europe · 2022Article
- Experience and awareness of research integrity among Japanese physicians: a nationwide cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Estimating the prevalence of text overlap in biomedical conference abstracts.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- Educating PhD Students in Research Integrity in Europe.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Research misconduct is an international concern. Misconduct policies can play a crucial role in preventing and policing research misconduct, and many institutions have developed their own policies. While institutional policies play a key role in preventing and policing misconduct, national policies are also important to ensure consistent promulgation and enforcement of ethical standards. The purpose of this study was to obtain more information about research misconduct policies across the globe. We found that twenty-two of the top forty research and development funding countries (55%) had a national misconduct policy. Four countries (18.2%) are in the process of developing a policy, and four (18.2%) have a national research ethics code but no misconduct policy. All twenty-two countries (100%) with national policies included fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in the definition of misconduct, but beyond that there was considerable diversity. Unethical authorship was mentioned in 54.6% of the misconduct definitions, followed by unethical publication practices (36.4%), conflict of interest mismanagement (36.4%), unethical peer review (31.8%), misconduct related to misconduct investigations (27.3%), poor record keeping (27.3%), other deception (27.3%), serious deviations (22.7%), violating confidentiality (22.7%), and human or animal research violations (22.7%). Having a national policy was positively associated with research and development funding ranking and intensiveness. To promote integrity in international research collaborations, countries should seek to harmonize and clarify misconduct definitions and develop procedures for adjudicating conflicts when harmonization does not occur.
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.