ArticleScientific reports2026
Development, validation and psychometric evaluation of the Plagiarism and Research Ethics Questionnaire (PRE-Q) among pharmacy students in Karachi, Pakistan.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Plagiarism is one of the most pressing challenges faced by higher education institutions, compromising academic integrity and negatively impacting the quality and credibility of scientific research. Therefore, this study aimed to assess undergraduate pharmacy students’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding research ethics and plagiarism using the Plagiarism and Research Ethics Questionnaire (PRE-Q). This multi-centric, cross-sectional study aimed to validate the developed PRE-Q among final-year pharmacy students from different universities in Karachi, Pakistan. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, and principal component analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation was conducted for data interpretability and reduce cross-loadings. Sampling adequacy and item correlations were confirmed using the KMO and Bartlett’s tests of sphericity. Key predictors of student practices were identified using binary logistic regression and decision tree analysis. The response rate of the study was 72.1%. Female respondents comprised 73.5% (n = 480) of the sample, with a mean age of 22.3 ± 0.82 years. The cut-off value for good KAP and experience was defined as achieving ≥ 70% scoring across all the constructs. Good knowledge was observed in 26.4% (n = 173) respondents , while only 7% (n = 46) displayed a positive attitude towards plagiarism. The majority of students, 67% (n = 438) demonstrated good practices, despite their limited involvement in research activities. Only 11% (n = 72) respondents had attended courses or workshops on ethics or responsible conduct of research. The most frequently reported reasons for plagiarism among students were academic pressure (n = 119, 18.2%), followed by lack of time (n = 103, 15.7%) and lack of knowledge (n = 89, 13.6%). The findings indicate that the PRE-Q is a valid and reliable tool for assessing research ethics and plagiarism related constructs. The outcomes revealed patterns in plagiarism-related practices and highlighted the key predictors that may guide the development of targeted educational and policy interventions.
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.