ArticleScience and engineering ethics2019
Testing Hypotheses on Risk Factors for Scientific Misconduct via Matched-Control Analysis of Papers Containing Problematic Image Duplications.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- High prevalence of articles with image-related problems in animal studies of subarachnoid hemorrhage and low rates of correction by publishers.PLoS biology · 2025Pooled it
- Research integrity in Spain: Great expectations, mediocre results.Accountability in research · 2026Article
- The publish or perish, publish and perish, publish then perish, and now retract and perish cultures in academia.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- ASM incorporates Imagetwin to address image duplication and preserve scientific accuracy.mBio · 2025Article
- Factors related to the severity of research misconduct administrative actions: An analysis of office of research integrity case summaries from 1993 to 2023.Accountability in research · 2025Article
- Publication integrity: what is it, why does it matter, how it is safeguarded and how could we do better?Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2025Review
- Development of an index system for the scientific literacy of medical staff: a modified Delphi study in China.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Ambiguity in Ethical Standards: Global Versus Local Science in Explaining Academic Plagiarism.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics.Internal and emergency medicine · 2024Review
- Ethical Orientation and Research Misconduct Among Business Researchers Under the Condition of Autonomy and Competition.Journal of business ethics : JBE · 2023Article
- Can research integrity prevail in the market? Lessons from commissioned research organizations.Accountability in research · 2022Article
- Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences.Life science alliance · 2022Article
- Article
- Institutional Approaches to Research Integrity in Ghana.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Review
- On the Willingness to Report and the Consequences of Reporting Research Misconduct: The Role of Power Relations.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists About Research Integrity.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Analysis and Correction of Inappropriate Image Duplication: theMolecular and cellular biology · 2018Article
- Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
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
It is commonly hypothesized that scientists are more likely to engage in data falsification and fabrication when they are subject to pressures to publish, when they are not restrained by forms of social control, when they work in countries lacking policies to tackle scientific misconduct, and when they are male. Evidence to test these hypotheses, however, is inconclusive due to the difficulties of obtaining unbiased data. Here we report a pre-registered test of these four hypotheses, conducted on papers that were identified in a previous study as containing problematic image duplications through a systematic screening of the journal PLoS ONE. Image duplications were classified into three categories based on their complexity, with category 1 being most likely to reflect unintentional error and category 3 being most likely to reflect intentional fabrication. We tested multiple parameters connected to the hypotheses above with a matched-control paradigm, by collecting two controls for each paper containing duplications. Category 1 duplications were mostly not associated with any of the parameters tested, as was predicted based on the assumption that these duplications were mostly not due to misconduct. Categories 2 and 3, however, exhibited numerous statistically significant associations. Results of univariable and multivariable analyses support the hypotheses that academic culture, peer control, cash-based publication incentives and national misconduct policies might affect scientific integrity. No clear support was found for the "pressures to publish" hypothesis. Female authors were found to be equally likely to publish duplicated images compared to males. Country-level parameters generally exhibited stronger effects than individual-level parameters, because developing countries were significantly more likely to produce problematic image duplications. This suggests that promoting good research practices in all countries should be a priority for the international research integrity agenda.
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.