Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41831176›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2026

Research Culture and Integrity in Japan: A Qualitative Study.

Tatsuya Ito, Mika Suzuki, Keiko Sato, Sayaka Takenouchi, Satoshi Kodama, Tetsuji Iseda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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

6 authors.

Tatsuya ItoRegulatory Science and Pharmaceutical Informatics, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan. taito@wakayama-med.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-8658-8012
Mika SuzukiKyoto College of Medical Science, Kyoto, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3861-0766
Keiko SatoHealth Informatics, School of Public Health, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0226-1338
Sayaka TakenouchiHuman Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8848-6126
Satoshi KodamaDivision of Philosophy, Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9288-723X
Tetsuji IsedaDivision of Contemporary Culture, Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0072-8371

Funding

JSPS KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) JP17K08915JSPS KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) JP21K10374
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There have been numerous instances of research and funding fraud by Japanese researchers that have discredited Japanese research, and thus ministries, universities and other institutions have attempted to prevent research misconduct and promote research integrity through measures such as policy amendments and education. However, it is unclear whether those measures have been effective, because research misconduct continues to occur. In this study, we conducted focus group interviews with 25 participants, including both researchers and administrators, from various academic disciplines. The interviews were guided by seven semi-structured questions based on the Promoting Integrity as an Integral Dimension of Excellence in Research protocol. Our analysis of the resulting data identified 20 themes. Regarding research integrity, participants highlighted boundary ambiguity and the need for a new definition. In relation to the research culture, the following barriers were identified: the laboratory environment, job security for junior researchers and middle-senior researchers, and pressures faced by principal investigators. In terms of policies, participants observed that research integrity regulations were not widely disseminated, and proposed several methods to provide education, including informational materials. Regarding improvements to the current environment, participants mentioned performance evaluation, an open research environment, a supportive research environment, and sharing of previous cases. While numerous issues were raised, several solutions were also proposed. We found that gaining access to the collective knowledge of faculty, students, and administrators is the best way to foster a strong research culture and develop research integrity.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchOrganizational CultureResearch PersonnelScientific MisconductAcademiaFacultyFocus GroupsHumansJapanQualitative ResearchUniversitiesFocus group interviewResearch cultureResearch integrityResearch misconduct

Identifiers

PMID41831176
PMCPMC13048944

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.