ArticleScience and engineering ethics2025
Aligning Scientific Values and Research Integrity: A Study of Researchers' Perceptions and Practices in Four Countries.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 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.
- The driving forces of research ethics in academia: insights from students based on the theory of planned behavior.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Scientific values are considered to play a significant role in responsible conduct of research education, such as raising awareness, changing cognition, and altering behavior. However, there is still a lack of empirical evidence regarding the relationship between scientists' subscription of scientific values and research integrity behaviors. This paper presents a cross-national study that examines researchers' perceptions and practices regards research integrity. The results show correlations between value adherence, level of acceptance of research misbehaviors, and self-reported research misbehavior. The study also reveals significant variations in these variables among researchers from different countries, academic positions, age groups, and genders. This cross-national investigation offers valuable insights into researchers' attitudes and behaviors regarding research misconduct, contributing to the promotion of ethical research practices worldwide and enhancing the credibility and integrity of scientific endeavors. Further research involving larger samples and more countries would provide deeper insights into the developments in researchers' perceptions of research misbehavior.
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.