ArticleScience and engineering ethics2017
Research Misconduct in the Croatian Scientific Community: A Survey Assessing the Forms and Characteristics of Research Misconduct.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Pooled it
- Questionable Research Practices: A Principled Classification and Ranking Based on Survey Data.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- Aligning Scientific Values and Research Integrity: A Study of Researchers' Perceptions and Practices in Four Countries.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review on the Evolution of Power Analysis Practices in Psychological Research.Psychologica Belgica · 2025Article
- Ambiguity in Ethical Standards: Global Versus Local Science in Explaining Academic Plagiarism.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers' Perceptions in Spain.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Perceptions of plagiarism by biomedical researchers: an online survey in Europe and China.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Psychometric properties of Persian version of the research misconduct questionnaire (PRMQ).Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2020Article
- Fake Peer Review and Inappropriate Authorship Are Real Evils.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Review
- Perceptions of Chinese Biomedical Researchers Towards Academic Misconduct: A Comparison Between 2015 and 2010.Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
- Plagiarism: A silent epidemic in scientific writing - Reasons, recognition and remedies.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2016Review
- Misconduct in Biomedical Research: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryReview
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
The prevalence and characteristics of research misconduct have mainly been studied in highly developed countries. In moderately or poorly developed countries such as Croatia, data on research misconduct are scarce. The primary aim of this study was to determine the rates at which scientists report committing or observing the most serious forms of research misconduct, such as falsification , fabrication, plagiarism, and violation of authorship rules in the Croatian scientific community. Additionally, we sought to determine the degree of development and the extent of implementation of the system for defining and regulating research misconduct in a typical scientific community in Croatia. An anonymous questionnaire was distributed among 1232 Croatian scientists at the University of Rijeka in 2012/2013 and 237 (19.2 %) returned the survey. Based on the respondents who admitted having committed research misconduct, 9 (3.8 %) admitted to plagiarism, 22 (9.3 %) to data falsification, 9 (3.8 %) to data fabrication, and 60 (25.3 %) respondents admitted to violation of authorship rules. Based on the respondents who admitted having observed research misconduct of fellow scientists, 72 (30.4 %) observed plagiarism, 69 (29.1 %) observed data falsification, 46 (19.4 %) observed data fabrication, and 132 (55.7 %) respondents admitted having observed violation of authorship rules. The results of our study indicate that the efficacy of the system for managing research misconduct in Croatia is poor. At the University of Rijeka there is no document dedicated exclusively to research integrity, describing the values that should be fostered by a scientist and clarifying the forms of research misconduct and what constitutes a questionable research practice. Scientists do not trust ethical bodies and the system for defining and regulating research misconduct; therefore the observed cases of research misconduct are rarely reported. Finally, Croatian scientists are not formally educated about responsible conduct of research at any level of their formal education. All mentioned indicate possible reasons for higher rates of research misconduct among Croatian scientists in comparison with scientists in highly developed countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26940319What 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.