ReviewScience and engineering ethics2026
Shaping the Field: A Review of the Use of Theory in Research on Research Integrity.
Review in Science and engineering ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interest in research integrity (RI) has proliferated and gained prominence, particularly within the past decade – both in policy and academic environments. Research on RI might be considered an emerging research field, with dedicated journals and conferences. However, it is still characterized by fragmentation and is often carried out by researchers belonging to other fields (e.g. medicine, psychology, sociology, business, law, bioethics), thereby bringing varied approaches to the study of RI. The implications of this for the knowledge produced are, however, still understudied. Our study examines the place of theory in the shaping of the field of research on RI and how the choices of theoretical frameworks in given studies shape the logic of inquiry. To provide an inclusive overview of the relevant research and the theoretical variation underpinning it, we conducted systematic searches of SCOPUS, PubMed, and Web of Science (WoS) databases for English-language articles published between 2010 and 2023, based on a pre-defined set of search terms. The study finds that the theoretical landscape is highly heterogenous. It is, to some extent, dominated by grounded theory, personality psychology and institutionalism, but also engages a very broad scope of other theoretical perspectives, including social psychology, psychoanalytic theory, and narrative analysis. Through closer analysis of a group of studies that share focus on the relationship between pressure and research misconduct, this review elucidates the far-reaching implications that the choice of theory has on every aspect of an individual study and the field of research on RI overall.
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.