ReviewResearch integrity and peer review2026
Scientific misconduct, questionable research practices, and research climate: empirical approaches to integrity problems.
Review in Research integrity and peer review, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Empirical research on scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) has increasingly adopted a systemic perspective, emphasising research climate, supervision, and organisational conditions. This PRISMA-guided scoping review synthesises 229 survey- and interview-based studies published between 2016 and 2025 to examine how misconduct and QRPs are empirically operationalised in perception- and climate-oriented research. Rather than aiming to estimate prevalence, the review focuses on the concepts, instruments, and methodological choices through which integrity problems are rendered measurable. The findings show that aggregate harm is rarely defined explicitly and is instead inferred from perceived prevalence and severity of practices. Severe violations dominate measurement frameworks, while routine, relational, and structurally induced practices remain weakly captured. Methodological patterns further shape what becomes empirically visible, highlighting the need for approaches that better integrate individual perceptions with institutional conditions when assessing integrity risks.
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.