ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026
Indirect measurement of research misconduct among Iranian postgraduate students of medical sciences using the unmatched count technique.
Article 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch misconduct poses a serious threat to academic integrity, particularly in medical sciences. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of various forms of research misconduct include plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, authorship misconduct, salami slicing, and purchasing research work among postgraduate students in Iranian medical universities using the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT).
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among postgraduate students from multiple Iranian medical universities using a double-list version of the unmatched count technique (UCT). The questionnaire was administered in two sequential waves, with approximately half of participants completing List A and the remaining participants completing List B, ensuring that each respondent received only one list version. For each research misconduct behavior, prevalence was estimated by calculating the mean difference in endorsement counts between lists containing the sensitive item and corresponding control lists with only non-sensitive items. In the double-list design, prevalence estimates were computed separately for List A and List B, with sensitive items counterbalanced across list positions to control for order effects. The final prevalence was calculated as the average of the two list-specific estimates, improving precision and reducing list-order bias.
resultsThe most commonly reported misconduct was using others' ideas or phrases without proper citation (43%), followed by dishonest result reporting (38%), data fabrication or deletion (34%), and authorship misrepresentation (34%). Salami slicing was reported by 26%, and 20% admitted to purchasing parts or all of a research project. The UCT survey tool demonstrated acceptable reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from 0.64 to 0.84.
conclusionThe findings indicate a troubling level of research misconduct among postgraduatestudents in Iran's medical sciences universities. This highlights the need for effective ethics training, stronger academic integrity policies, and enforceable institutional mechanisms to promote responsible research conduct and protect the future credibility of medical professionals.
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.