ArticleScience and engineering ethics2021
Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers.
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. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experiences of researchers in navigating applied research in the MENA region: an exploratory online cross-sectional survey.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Journal of Global Health's GUidelines for Authors on Requesting and DIsclosing changes in Authorship Nominations (GUARDIAN).Journal of global health · 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
- Favorable research environment is a key determinant of research integrity according to a ten-country survey across Central and Eastern Europe.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Indirect feedback as a tool for identifying academic misconduct: a cross-sectional multicentral study among medical students.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Aligning Scientific Values and Research Integrity: A Study of Researchers' Perceptions and Practices in Four Countries.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- Citation Ethics: An Exploratory Survey of Norms and Behaviors.Journal of academic ethics · 2025Article
- Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- Article
- Knowledge, attitudes and practices about research misconduct among medical residents in southwest China: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- How Competition for Funding Impacts Scientific Practice: Building Pre-fab Houses but no Cathedrals.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- Article
- Researchers on research integrity: a survey of European and American researchers.F1000Research · 2023Article
- Valuable unintended learning outcomes when practicum for student teachers in kindergartens is carried out online.Education and information technologies · 2023Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article presents results from the national survey conducted in 2018 for the project Research Integrity in Norway (RINO). A total of 31,206 questionnaires were sent out to Norwegian researchers by e-mail, and 7291 responses were obtained. In this paper, we analyse the survey data to determine attitudes towards and the prevalence of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) and contrast this with attitudes towards and the prevalence of the more questionable research practices (QRPs) surveyed. Our results show a relatively low percentage of self-reported FFPs (0.2-0.3%), while the number of researchers who report having committed one of the QRPs during the last three years reached a troublesome 40%. The article also presents a ranking of the perceived severity of FFP and QRPs among Norwegian researchers. Overall, there is a widespread normative consensus, where FFP is considered more troublesome than QRPs.
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.