ArticleScience and engineering ethics2026
Research Misconduct in Academia: Examining the Views of Academics in a Public University in Ghana.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The motivations for research misconduct (RM) among Ghanaian academics are likely multifaceted but poorly studied. In this pilot exploratory descriptive case study, we thematically explored institutional policies and conducted thirty (30) in-depth interviews of purposively selected Ghanaian academics in a public university in Ghana by examining their views on RM causes, enablers, inhibitors and preventive strategies. We found diverse views about RM among the academics interviewed. For instance, the majority of academics perceived RM in Ghanaian universities as a common practice, fueled by the 'publish-or-perish' phenomenon whilst a few thought RM may not always be intentional. Two important views of RM were also observed: (a) regulatory definitions of fabrication, falsification, manipulation and plagiarism (FFMP) and (b) professional definitions of not meeting scientific standards but not falling into FFMP. We also observed that the common practice of RM among Ghanaian academics may slow scientific progress, dent institutional reputation, harm researchers and participants. The university's policies provided guidelines on conducting research responsibly but no explicit references were made to what constitutes RM and its related consequences. Our study thus highlights the need for increased awareness and education on ethical research conduct in the university and recommend a policy decision from the University management to publicize research integrity and build the Institutional capacity to prevent and manage research misconduct and the damaging effects on the reputation of academics and the university that can follow. A nationwide study is also recommended for broader empirical evidence for policy impact.
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.