Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37434258›Full record

ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2023

Institutional capacity to prevent and manage research misconduct: perspectives from Kenyan research regulators.

Edwin Were, Jepchirchir Kiplagat, Eunice Kaguiri, Rose Ayikukwei, Violet Naanyu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Edwin WereDepartment of Reproductive Health, Moi University, Box 4606 -30100, Eldoret, Kenya. eowere@gmail.com.
Jepchirchir KiplagatAMPATH Research Program, Moi University and Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital, Box 4606 -30100, Eldoret, Kenya.
Eunice KaguiriAMPATH Research Program, Moi University and Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital, Box 4606 -30100, Eldoret, Kenya.
Rose AyikukweiAMPATH Research Program, Moi University and Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital, Box 4606 -30100, Eldoret, Kenya.
Violet NaanyuSchool of Arts and Social Sciences, Moi University, Box 3900 -30100, Eldoret, Kenya.
Moi University · KEAMPATH · KE

Funding

Developing Capacity of Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital / Moi University Institutional Research Ethics Committee (MTRH/MU IREC), Kenya to Prevent and Manage Research Misconduct.G11TW010554 · FIC · MOI UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WERE, EDWIN ONYANGO · 2017 to 2019
$298k
FIC NIH HHS G11 TW010554
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch misconduct i.e. fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism is associated with individual, institutional, national, and global factors. Researchers' perceptions of weak or non-existent institutional guidelines on the prevention and management of research misconduct can encourage these practices. Few countries in Africa have clear guidance on research misconduct. In Kenya, the capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct in academic and research institutions has not been documented. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of Kenyan research regulators on the occurrence of and institutional capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct.

methodsInterviews with open-ended questions were conducted with 27 research regulators (chairs and secretaries of ethics committees, research directors of academic and research institutions, and national regulatory bodies). Among other questions, participants were asked: (1) How common is research misconduct in your view? (2) Does your institution have the capacity to prevent research misconduct? (3) Does your institution have the capacity to manage research misconduct? Their responses were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using NVivo software. Deductive coding covered predefined themes including perceptions on occurrence, prevention detection, investigation, and management of research misconduct. Results are presented with illustrative quotes.

resultsRespondents perceived research misconduct to be very common among students developing thesis reports. Their responses suggested there was no dedicated capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct at the institutional and national levels. There were no specific national guidelines on research misconduct. At the institutional level, the only capacity/efforts mentioned were directed at reducing, detecting, and managing student plagiarism. There was no direct mention of the capacity to manage fabrication and falsification or misconduct by faculty researchers. We recommend the development of Kenya code of conduct or research integrity guidelines that would cover misconduct.

Indexed as

Institutional capacityKenyaPrevention and managementResearch misconduct

Identifiers

PMID37434258
PMCPMC10337100
OpenAlexW4383894996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.