Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33492516›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2021

Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers' Perceptions in Spain.

Ramón A Feenstra, Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, Daniel Pallarés-Domínguez

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ramón A FeenstraDepartment of Philosophy and Sociology, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, Universitat Jaume I de Castellón, Avd/Sos Baynat s/n, 12071, Castellón de la plana, Spain. feenstra@uji.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4775-8762
Emilio Delgado López-CózarDepartment of Information and Communication, Facultad de Comunicación y Documentación, Universidad de Granada, Calle Campus De Cartuja, s/n, 18011, Granada, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8184-551X
Daniel Pallarés-DomínguezDepartment of Philosophy and Sociology, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, Universitat Jaume I de Castellón, Avd/Sos Baynat s/n, 12071, Castellón de la plana, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6510-8448

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Empirical studies have revealed a disturbing prevalence of research misconduct in a wide variety of disciplines, although not, to date, in the areas of ethics and philosophy. This study aims to provide empirical evidence on perceptions of how serious a problem research misconduct is in these two disciplines in Spain, particularly regarding the effects that the model used to evaluate academics' research performance may have on their ethical behaviour. The methodological triangulation applied in the study combines a questionnaire, a debate at the annual meeting of scientific association, and in-depth interviews. Of the 541 questionnaires sent out, 201 responses were obtained (37.1% of the total sample), with a significant difference in the participation of researchers in philosophy (30.5%) and in ethics (52.8%); 26 researchers took part in the debate and 14 interviews were conducted. The questionnaire results reveal that 91.5% of the respondents considered research misconduct to be on the rise; 63.2% considered at least three of the fraudulent practices referred to in the study to be commonplace, and 84.1% identified two or more such practices. The researchers perceived a high prevalence of duplicate publication (66.5%) and self-plagiarism (59.0%), use of personal influence (57.5%) and citation manipulation (44.0%), in contrast to a low perceived incidence of data falsification or fabrication (10.0%). The debate and the interviews corroborated these data. Researchers associated the spread of these misconducts with the research evaluation model applied in Spain.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchScientific MisconductHumansPerceptionPlagiarismSpainEthicsEvaluation policyPhilosophyResearch misconductSelf-plagiarismSpain

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.