Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41731008›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Favorable research environment is a key determinant of research integrity according to a ten-country survey across Central and Eastern Europe.

Renata Veselska, Jan Sirucek, Eugenijus Gefenas, Ana Borovecki, Alliance for Life Focus Group 2: Research Ethics and Research Integrity

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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

5 authors.

Renata VeselskaDepartment of Experimental Biology, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia. veselska@mail.muni.cz.
Jan SirucekDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia.
Eugenijus GefenasCenter for Health Ethics, Law and History, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Health Sciences, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Ana BoroveckiDepartment of Social Medicine and Organization of Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Alliance for Life Focus Group 2: Research Ethics and Research Integrity

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our study was designed to investigate research integrity among scientists actively working in biomedicine. Using the unique opportunity of the Alliance for Life Sciences, a networking initiative of leading research institutions and universities in Central and Eastern Europe, we organized our own in-depth survey on research integrity in the countries involved. We employed a standardized questionnaire consisting of 19 closed questions with simple, multiple-choice, or scaled responses to explore the situation regarding research integrity at Alliance for Life Sciences member institutions. The questionnaire was in English language and was administered through the Qualtrics platform anonymously. Finally, 10 institutions from 10 different countries participated in the study and the aggregated group of respondents consisted of 752 scientists. First, the analysis of the obtained data included descriptive frequencies of the responses to all types of questions. Second, the construction and analysis of the model of latent variables was included to verify assumptions about individual aspects of the observed behavior and their interrelationships. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to verify the domain structure, followed by multivariate analysis of variance to assess the effects of institutional affiliation, gender, seniority, and ethics training. Our data provide the first systematic description of research integrity at the biomedical research institutions in 10 Central and Eastern European countries. Because the majority of our respondents were experienced researchers, our study is really valuable for mapping the state of research integrity in participating countries. The descriptive part of the results brings a detailed insight into the research environment in relation to research integrity, as well as recent and former personal experiences with scientific misconduct. It also covers the personal acceptability of various forms and consequences of scientific misconduct and personal estimations of scientific misconduct. The unique findings of our study came from the model showing the correlations between latent and higher-order variables, which reflect relevant domains of the questionnaire. Moreover, seniority and ethics training were identified as predictors of adherence to the principles of research integrity. These results emphasized the importance of the favorable research environment regarding scientific integrity, which is apparently interconnected with the incidence of various forms of misconduct as experienced recently or in the past. Our study using a model of latent variables yielded unique results that clearly showed the importance of fostering a favorable research environment, especially through systematic education in research integrity and available institutional policies that both reduce the risk of scientific misconduct.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchEthics, ResearchResearch PersonnelAcademiaEuropeEurope, EasternFemaleHumansMaleScientific MisconductSurveys and QuestionnairesBiomedical researchFabricationFalsificationPlagiarismQuestionable research practicesResearch environmentResearch integrityScientific fraudScientific misconduct

Identifiers

PMID41731008
PMCPMC13031920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.