Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41784878›Full record

ReviewScience and engineering ethics2026

Shaping the Field: A Review of the Use of Theory in Research on Research Integrity.

Marina Lambert, Lise Degn

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

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

2 authors.

Marina LambertThe Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, 1331, 019, Aarhus, C 8000, Denmark. marl@ps.au.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3109-6178
Lise DegnThe Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, 1331, 019, Aarhus, C 8000, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6571-9743

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Ethics, ResearchResearchScientific MisconductAcademiaHumansResearch DesignResearch PersonnelMeta researchResearch integrityResearch misconductReviewTheory

Identifiers

PMID41784878
PMCPMC13035750

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.