ArticleCureus2024
Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices About Research Integrity and Scientific Misconduct Among the Faculty and Medical Postgraduates Working in Medical Colleges in North Karnataka and Central India: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Research integrity is an active adherence to the ethical principles and professional standards essential for the responsible practice of research. Research or scientific misconduct stands like child abuse today. The survey of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded scientists calculated an absolute minimum of 2325 incidents of scientific misconduct per year. A report has also shown that Iran (6.60), India (5.68), Turkey (5.38), South Korea (3.59), and China (2.00) had higher ratios of publication misconduct to distrust data or interpretations than other countries. Hence, to determine the knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAPs) of the research integrity/scientific misconduct among the faculty and postgraduates working in the medical colleges in North Karnataka (NK) and Central India (CI), this study has been carried out. Methods It is a web-based, cross-sectional study carried out with the use of Google Forms (Google, Mountain View, California). A pretested, unstructured questionnaire consisting of 25 questions was posted in the way of a link to the faculty and postgraduates working in various disciplines within the colleges of NK and CI either by using an e-mail or other social platforms like WhatsApp. Institutional Ethics Committee approval was obtained in both regions before conducting the survey. Results A total of 146 participants responded to the e-questionnaire posted to them. Participants from CI displayed better awareness in several areas compared to NK. Citing articles and/ or materials that have not been read is the common questionable research practice (QRP) they have come across, as mentioned by participants in both groups. Discussion The study reveals a moderate level of knowledge and variable attitudes toward research integrity. The "publish or perish" culture is a major contributor to misconduct. Training and awareness programs are needed to enhance ethical research practices. Conclusion This study highlights the need for improved education and policy implementation to uphold research integrity in medical colleges, emphasizing the role of academic culture in shaping ethical research practices.
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.