ArticleF1000Research2025
Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in F1000Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impacts of Responsible Conduct of Research Education on the Career and Practice of Graduating Fellows.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Research integrity, essential for ethical scientific research, has been inadequately addressed in Ethiopia, resulting in gaps in addressing misconduct like plagiarism, falsification and fabrication. The aim of this study was to assess the magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia. Methods: An institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted on a random sample of researchers. Data were collected via a self-administered, structured questionnaire, which was adapted from a similar study. The collected data were analysed using descriptive, bivariate, and multivariable logistic regression. Result: A total of 244 researchers participated in the study, resulting in an 82% response rate. In our study, 37.7% of participants reported engaging in at least one form of misconduct, 95% CI [31.6%, 44.1%]. Authorship misconduct was the most common form of self-reported misconduct (47.5%), 95% CI [41.1%, 54.0%], followed by fabrication and falsification (40.6%), 95% CI [34.4%, 47.0%]. Publication pressure was significantly associated with research misconduct (AOR = 3.18; 95% CI: [1.02, 9.95]). Conclusion: This study highlights the prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices among academic researchers, with authorship misconduct, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism being the most commonly reported types. Attitudes toward research misconduct and self-reported involvement were influenced by academic position, research experience, and publication pressure, with junior researchers being more likely to report engaging in misbehavior. While ethics training has occasionally been associated with reduced rates of research misconduct, its effectiveness remains uncertain, as institutional culture, supervision, and mentorship may play a more significant role. Addressing research misconduct requires a comprehensive approach that extends beyond ethical instruction, incorporating targeted support for early-career researchers, open dialogue, and institutional policy reforms.
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.