ReviewThe American journal of medicine2020
Establishing and Maintaining Research Integrity at Academic Institutions: Challenges and Opportunities.
Review in The American journal of medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Multifaceted Role of Scientific Paper and Poster Presentations: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Interventions to promote medical research integrity: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Why is it important to implement meta-research in universities and institutes with medical research activities?Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Article
- A mixed-methods survey and focus group study to understand researcher and clinician preferences for a Journal transparency Tool.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Research Integrity in Guidelines and evIDence synthesis (RIGID): a framework for assessing research integrity in guideline development and evidence synthesis.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Scientific misconducts: paper mills in Peru.Revista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publicaArticle
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
Abstract
Integrity and trust are essential attributes of medical researchers. Research misconduct represents clear and present dangers to academic institutions and their faculty, residents, students, and staff. To achieve and maintain public trust, medical researchers must achieve and maintain research integrity. To do so requires synchronicity and collaboration between and within academic institutions. Substantial failures to maintain research integrity by institutional leadership will lead to increasing demands to do so from the funding organizations and the general public. This, in turn, will lead to avoidable consequences of substantial penalties, financial and otherwise, adverse publicity, and reputational damage. Researchers must self-regulate to avoid pitfalls, including those created by changes in the medical care delivery system that have decreased the influence of health care providers and increased the influence of outside legal and business interests. Our common goal should be to return public trust in our research enterprise that has done so much good for so many, but requires the establishment and maintenance of vigilance to establish and maintain research integrity.
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.