ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Whistleblowing and retractions concerning Iran-affiliated medical research: motives and editorial perspectives.
Article in BMC medical 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research integrity underpins credible scientific research. Whistleblowing on research fraud, including data falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism, is critical for identifying flawed publications. Here, we investigated whistleblowers' roles in the retraction of Iran-affiliated, medically related publications between 2014 and 2024 and documented whistleblowers' motives and journal editors' perspectives. We used a structured questionnaire to interview 18 whistleblowers, 10 members of editorial boards, and four editors-in-chief. We identified three dominant whistleblower motives: commitment to academic integrity and ethics, frustration with institutional inaction, and, in some cases, retaliation or grievances. Whistleblowers express their vulnerability in high-risk environments, consistently reporting fear of legal, professional, or personal retaliation. Editors reported that they relied on whistleblowers to identify misconduct and acknowledged that assessing motives and navigating the Iranian institutional bureaucracy were difficult. Both groups highlighted that participants perceived ineffective ethics committees and insufficient protection measures as contributing to an environment conducive to misconduct. The findings suggest that whistleblowers are perceived as indispensable gatekeepers of integrity, and that a complex interplay of moral obligations, personal grievances, and institutional inadequacies may drive them to report transgressions. Based on these findings, we suggest that transparent editorial protocols, secure reporting mechanisms, whistleblower protections, enhanced institutional oversight, and culturally aware international interactions may represent useful considerations for safeguarding research integrity in complex academic environments.
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.