ArticleJournal of academic ethics2018
A Cross-Sectional Survey Study to Assess Prevalence and Attitudes Regarding Research Misconduct among Investigators in the Middle East.
Article in Journal of academic ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions of Research Integrity Among Medical Researchers in Shanghai Teaching Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Developing world bioethics · 2026Article
- Experiences of researchers in navigating applied research in the MENA region: an exploratory online cross-sectional survey.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Questionable Research Practices: A Principled Classification and Ranking Based on Survey Data.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- A low-cost approach to high quality responsible conduct of research education.International journal of ethics education · 2026Article
- Description and Impact of the 20-Year Fogarty International Center/NIH Middle East Research Ethics Training Initiative.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025Article
- Article
- Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey.F1000Research · 2025Article
- Prevalence and factors associated with research misconduct among faculty in selected public universities in Eastern Uganda: a cross-sectional study.Discover education · 2025Article
- A study on the knowledge, attitude, and practice of research integrity among medical professionals in Ningxia, China.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Perceptions of the Research Integrity Climate in Egyptian Universities: A Survey Among Academic Researchers.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024Article
- A Survey Study on Knowledge and Attitude Toward the Ethics Committee and Research Ethical Practices Among Researchers From Kuwait.Science and engineering ethics · 2023Article
- Institutional capacity to prevent and manage research misconduct: perspectives from Kenyan research regulators.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Article
- Researcher Perceptions of Involving Consumers in Health Research in Australia: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Scientific publications and data evaluation in the digital age (a perspective of a thermodynamics researcher).Fluid phase equilibria · 2023Article
- Reliability and validation of an attitude scale regarding responsible conduct in research.PloS one · 2022Article
- 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
- Knowledge, Awareness, Attitudes, and Practices towards Research Ethics and Research Ethics Committees among Myanmar Post-graduate Students.Asian bioethics review · 2020Article
- Institutional Approaches to Research Integrity in Ghana.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Review
- Perceptions of occurrence of research misconduct and related factors among Kenyan investigators engaged in HIV research.Accountability in research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecent studies from Western countries indicate significant levels of questionable research practices, but similar data from low and middle-income countries are limited. Our aims were to assess the prevalence of and attitudes regarding research misconduct among researchers in several universities in the Middle East and to identify factors that might account for our findings.
methodsWe distributed an anonymous questionnaire to a convenience sample of investigators at several universities in Egypt, Lebanon, and Bahrain. Participants were asked to a) self-report their extent of research misconducts, as well as their knowledge of colleagues engaging in similar research misconducts and b) provide their extent of agreement with certain attitudes about research misconduct. We used descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate logistic regression statistics to analyze the data.
resultsData from 278 participants showed a high prevalence of misconduct, as 59.4% of our respondents self-reported to committing at least one misbehaviors and 74.5% reported having knowledge of any misbehaviors among any of their colleagues. The most common type of self-report misconduct was "circumventing research ethics regulations" (50.5%) followed by "fabrication and falsification" (28.6%). A significant predictor of misconduct included a lack of "prior ethics training".
conclusionScientific misconduct represents a significant issue in several universities in the Middle East. The demonstration that a lack of "prior ethics training" was a significant predictor of misconduct should lead to educational initiatives in research integrity. Further studies are needed to confirm whether our results can be generalized to other universities in the Middle East.
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.