Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40442867›Full record

ArticleAccountability in research2026

Research integrity in Spain: Great expectations, mediocre results.

Inmaculada de Melo-Martín

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Accountability in research, 2026. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

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

1 author.

Inmaculada de Melo-MartínDivision of Medical Ethics, Weill Cornell Medical College-Cornell University, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8656-8497

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR001873 · NCATS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI REILLY, MUREDACH P · 2016 to 2025
$99.0M
Disparities in COVID Disease Severity and Outcomes in New York CityUL1TR002384 · NCATS · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI JULIANNE L IMPERATO-MCGINLEY · 2017 to 2026
$86.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001873NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002384
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reliable scientific knowledge allows us to better understand the natural world, grounds interventions to improve health and wellbeing of humans and other entities, contributes to economic development, and informs policymaking. Ensuring the integrity of scientific research is necessary to advance these various benefits and to safeguard the public's warranted trust in science. Although a variety of complex factors are likely to play a role in advancing or hindering research integrity, some evidence shows that institutional and national policies can be more or less conducive to promoting research integrity and preventing misconduct. I focus here on Spain. I critically assess Spanish legislation and institutional policies and argue that while they proclaim ethical values consistent with fostering research integrity and preventing misconduct, these values fail to be put into practice. I explain some factors that contribute to these failings, and I also offer some suggestions that could contribute to ensuring the respect of ethical values already enshrined in Spanish policies.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchEthics, ResearchScientific MisconductHumansSpaininstitutional policiesnational regulationsResearch integrityresearch misconductSpain

Identifiers

PMID40442867
PMCPMC13220707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.