ArticleScience and engineering ethics2018
In Their Own Words: Research Misconduct from the Perspective of Researchers in Malaysian Universities.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research Misconduct in Academia: Examining the Views of Academics in a Public University in Ghana.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- The Shifting 'Self' of Science's Self-Governing Capacity: Four Decades of Research Integrity Discussions inSocial studies of science · 2026Article
- The Cultural Context of Plagiarism and Research Misconduct in the Asian Region.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Article
- RESPONSE_ABILITY A Card-Based Engagement Method to Support Researchers' Ability to Respond to Integrity Issues.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Taiwanese Researchers' Perceptions of Questionable Authorship Practices: An Exploratory Study.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists About Research Integrity.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
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
Abstract
Published data and studies on research misconduct, which focuses on researchers in Malaysia, is still lacking, therefore, we decided that this was an area for investigation. This study provides qualitative results for the examined issues through series of in-depth interviews with 21 researchers and lecturers in various universities in Malaysia. The aims of this study were to investigate the researchers' opinions and perceptions regarding what they considered to be research misconduct, their experience with such misconduct, and the factors that contribute to research misconduct. Our findings suggest that the most common research misconducts that are currently being witnessed in Malaysian universities are plagiarism and authorship disputes, however, researchers seldom report incidents of research misconduct because it takes too much time, effort and work to report them, and some are just afraid of repercussions when they do report it. This suggests possible loopholes in the monitoring system, which may allow some researchers to bypass it and engage in misconduct. This study also highlights the structural and individual factors as the most influential factors when it comes to research misconduct besides organizational, situational and cultural factors. Finally, this study highlights the concerns of all participants regarding the 'publish or perish' pressure that they believe would lead to a hostile working environment, thus enhancing research misconduct, as researchers tend to think about their own performance rather than that of whole team or faculty. Consequently this weakens the interpersonal relationships among researchers, which may compromise the teaching and supervision of junior researchers and research students.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29249021What 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.