ArticleScientific reports2026
A multicenter cross-sectional study on perceptions and peer-reported prevalence of research misconduct among Chinese medical postgraduates.
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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the gap between attitudes towards and personally observed breaches of research integrity among medical postgraduates in China, a critical yet understudied population. We conducted an online, cross-sectional survey among postgraduates at three Chinese medical schools. A self-administered questionnaire was used to evaluate their attitudes toward research integrity breaches and their perceptions of such behaviors among peers. Among 983 respondents (719 master's, 264 doctoral), a strong majority condemned serious research misconduct. Only 0.93% expressed acceptance for falsifying images to reverse results, and 1.53% for manipulating data to achieve significance. However, peer-reports revealed a higher prevalence of observed misconduct, with 18.41% indicating knowledge of data fabrication among peers. In conclusion, while Chinese medical postgraduates largely condemn serious research misconduct, the peer-reported occurrence of such behaviors indicates that ethical awareness has not been fully translated into practice. These findings highlight the need for bolstered educational initiatives and suggest that the peer-report method can be a key tool for educators to assess and address integrity issues within their institutions.
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.