ArticleDeveloping world bioethics2026
Perceptions of Research Integrity Among Medical Researchers in Shanghai Teaching Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Developing world bioethics, 2026. 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.
- Perceptions of Research Integrity Among Medical Researchers in Shanghai Teaching Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Developing world bioethics · 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
Research integrity has become a pressing concern in China, which accounts for a large share of global retractions. Yet little is known about how research integrity is understood and enacted within teaching hospitals. In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed 106 medical researchers across four Shanghai hospitals to assess their awareness, attitudes, and practices regarding scientific misconduct, as well as the role of integrity education. Most respondents reported familiarity with definitions of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism and expressed strong disapproval of these behaviors. Nonetheless, 11%-22% indicated some degree of tolerance toward selective reporting or unjustified authorship, and firsthand reports of witnessed misconduct were uncommon. Participation in formal courses or lectures on research integrity was associated with higher knowledge scores and stronger agreement with ethical principles. These findings reveal a tension between high awareness and partial tolerance, highlighting the importance of exploring how institutional cultures and incentive systems may influence ethical behavior in future research and policy efforts.
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.