Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41196517›Full record

ArticlePsicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS2025

The importance of promoting a culture of academic integrity in higher education institutions in China.

Wenwei Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS, 2025. 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.

Wenwei ZhuResearch Center for Party Building in the New Era, Party School of the Qinghai Provincial Committee of C.P.C, No. 2 Huanghe Road, Xining, 810000, China. wenweizhu6@susssg.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-2341-0053

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAcademic misconduct remains a pervasive issue in higher education institutions, undermining both academic integrity and the quality of the educational environment. Existing research primarily focuses on describing the forms and frequency of violations.

objectiveThis study evaluated the effectiveness of an educational intervention designed to modify students' attitudes and behaviors regarding academic integrity.

methodsThe study implemented a controlled experimental design with pre-test and post-test measurements. The participants were 400 undergraduate students from a Chinese university (202 males and 198 females, mean age = 21 years), who were assigned to either an experimental or control group. The six-month intervention was an educational program comprising lectures, role-playing exercises, discussions, and interactive workshops. The scale of academic dishonesty developed by Rawwas and Isakson was used to measure aspects such as acceptance of cheating, unfair advantages, data fabrication, and disregard for dishonest practices.

resultsThe analysis revealed statistically significant improvements across all categories among students in the experimental group after completing the program. No significant changes were observed in the control group.

conclusionThe findings confirm the efficacy of structured educational programs in reducing the propensity for academic misconduct. This study provides empirical evidence useful for universities seeking to implement ethical standards and foster a culture of academic integrity.

Indexed as

Academic ethicsEducational policy reformFraud preventionHigher education in ChinaIntegrity-focused interventionMoral development of students

Identifiers

PMID41196517
PMCPMC12592605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.