Current situation and influence factors of scientific integrity in China: A multicenter survey.

Xinqiao Liu, Yuxin Guo, Wenjuan Gao, Yu Xie, Heling Zhao, Jun Du

Open access · goldAbstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Xinqiao LiuSchool of Education, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.

Yuxin GuoSchool of Education, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.

Wenjuan GaoInstitute of Higher Education, Beihang University, Beijing, China.

Yu XieCancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Office of Academic Research, National Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Beijing, China.

Heling ZhaoCancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Office of Academic Research, National Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Beijing, China.

Jun DuCancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Office of Academic Research, National Cancer Center, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Beijing, China.

Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNTianjin University · CNBeihang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Cases of scientific misconduct have occurred frequently, especially in the field of medical research. We collected electronic questionnaires from 1257 medical staff in 43 cities and obtained a cross-sectional data set of their understanding of scientific integrity in research. This study aims to propose recommendations for establishing a mature oversight system for research integrity. Methods: The study employed multiple regression analysis to explore the effect of different factors on the perception of four types of research integrity. Results: Female participants had a higher understanding of project application integrity than men ( Conclusions: We found that female, medical technology department, advanced education background, and advanced professional titles were significantly associated with a higher understanding of scientific integrity in research in China.

Indexed as

Gender differencesMedical researchMedical staffPerception of scientific integrity

Identifiers

PMID38304226

DOI10.1016/j.apjon.2023.100365

PMCPMC10831262

OpenAlexW4390078213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

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.