ArticleBMC medical education2025
Indirect feedback as a tool for identifying academic misconduct: a cross-sectional multicentral study among medical students.
Article in BMC medical education, 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.
- Institutional environment, academic attitude, and misconduct among medical students: a structural equation modeling and cluster analysis.BMC medical education · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcademic misconduct remains a pervasive challenge in medical education, threatening the integrity of research and healthcare outcomes. Traditional self-reporting methods for identifying misconduct are often limited by social desirability bias, leading to significant underreporting. This study explores the use of an indirect feedback approach to provide a more accurate assessment of academic misconduct among medical students.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted involving 1,622 postgraduate medical students from five medical institutions in Sichuan and Chongqing. Participants completed a structured questionnaire designed to collect demographic information, indirect feedback on observed misconduct, and perceptions of academic pressures. Observed misconduct included data fabrication, plagiarism, and inappropriate authorship. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, employing chi-square tests to evaluate associations between demographic variables and reported observations.
resultsOnly 2.71% of participants admitted personal involvement in misconduct, whereas 27.11% reported observing such behaviors within their networks. The most frequently observed misconduct occurred during data collection (31.73%) and data processing (29.51%), stages often marked by minimal oversight. Male students, those in higher academic years, and individuals with more publications were significantly more likely to report observed misconduct (p < 0.001). Notably, respondents with no publications reported lower levels of observed misconduct (26.85%) compared to those with 3-5 publications (45.93%). Additionally, respondents identified misconduct among undergraduate peers, research group members, and collaborators, with undergraduate peers accounting for the highest proportion (45.35%).
conclusionIndirect feedback revealed a 27.11% prevalence of observed misconduct, compared to only 2.71% self-reported, suggesting underreporting in traditional approaches. This method provides valuable insights into misconduct patterns and at-risk groups, enabling the development of targeted interventions. Despite its potential, limitations such as reliance on self-reported observations warrant further refinement. Future research should integrate indirect feedback with complementary tools to enhance monitoring systems and foster a culture of transparency and accountability in medical education. By addressing academic misconduct effectively, institutions can uphold research integrity and public trust in scientific outcomes.
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.