ReviewOman medical journal2016
Research Misconduct: The Peril of Publish or Perish.
Review in Oman medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey.F1000Research · 2025Article
- Perceptions of the Research Integrity Climate in Egyptian Universities: A Survey Among Academic Researchers.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024Article
- The Reviewer Academy of the Society of Critical Care Medicine: Key Principles and Strategic Plan.Critical care medicine · 2023Article
- Can Authorship be Denied for Contract Work?Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- The Second Mediterranean Seminar on Science Writing, Editing and Publishing (SWEP - 2018), Sarajevo, December 8th, 2018.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2018Article
- Writing a Research Proposal to The Research Council of Oman.Oman medical journal · 2017Review
- How Do We Deal with Research Misconduct?Oman medical journal · 2016Article
- How informed are our subjects?Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a spurt of interest in research productivity in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to lay the foundation for national development. From a global perspective, increased research productivity could conceivably be accompanied by an exponential increase in research misconduct (RM). Inevitably, erroneous or falsified data will be expected to adversely affect public health by misleading policy makers and clinicians alike into embarking on health policy and allocation of resources that are byproducts of RM. This will contribute significantly to the emerging crisis of confidence of the public in the integrity of scientific research. For a long time, RM has been considered only as plagiarism or data fabrication and falsification. However, the concept of RM nowadays encompasses more and, in this review, we discuss its possible implications in emerging economies, such as those of the GCC countries. We suggest that GCC countries ought to consider implementing remedial and punitive policies to deal with RM.
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.