Abstract

This article describes the scoping that was grounded on Arksey and O’Malley's (2005) mode of operation, and follows the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. The scoping review aimed to explore a global perspective on research integrity among research scholars, given how little we know about the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of research academics around research integrity. The researchers completed a systematic search for articles spanning 368 records published from 2014 - 2023 from Science Direct, EBSCO and ProQuest. Ultimately, 37 empirical studies were included after screening and a critical appraisal. The co-authorship network illustrated distinct small, but meaningful clusters with limited institutional connections among researchers in the field, while the keywords analysis revealed dominant themes of research misconduct, research integrity, and knowledge, revealing gaps in areas such as questionable research practices and informed consent. Additionally, despite illustrating a great deal of variation, research integrity is generally overlapping, along discipline and across regions, growing with relative higher rates of questionable research practices, including academic authorship, selective reporting, and p-hacking, while as before, at least related, and hardly even acknowledged, of being involved in Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism (FFP). Yes, notably, barriers towards protecting research integrity manifest as publication pressures, and institutional support is horrendous. A positive association was given for publication among researchers, at least apparently correlated, and provided with respect to researchers with misconduct. Scholarly education about ethics and institutional support may vary widely, which suggests a range of variables for focus on and moreover blanket customized training and institutional restructuring supporting research integrity.

Keywords

Research Integrity, Research Misconduct, Research Ethics and Questionable Research Practice,

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Abdi, S., Fieuws, S., Nemery, B., Dierickx, K. (2021) Do we achieve anything by teaching research integrity to starting PhD students?. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8 (1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00908-5
  2. Agnoli, F., Wicherts, J.M., Veldkamp, C.L., Albiero, P., Cubelli, R. (2017) Questionable research practices among Italian research psychologists. Plos One, 12(3), e0172792. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172792
  3. Alahmad, G., Alshahrani, K.M., Alduhaim, R.A., Alhelal, R., Faden, R.M., Shaheen, N.A. (2023) Awareness of medical professionals regarding research ethics in a tertiary care hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A survey to assess training needs. Healthcare, 11 (20), 2718. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11202718
  4. Allum, N., Reid, A., Bidoglia, M., Gaskell, G., Aubert-Bonn, N., Buljan, I., Fuglsang, S., Horbach, S., Kavouras, P., Marusic, A., Mejlgaard, N., Pizzolato, D., Roje, R., Tijdink, J., Veltri, G. (2023) Researchers on research integrity: A survey of European and American researchers. F1000Research, 12,187. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128733.1
  5. Altbach, P.G., Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303542
  6. Alzahrani, M.S., Ingle, N.A., Assery, M.K. (2020). Knowledge, attitude, and practice about plagiarism among dental interns and postgraduate dental students in Riyadh city, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health, 7(9), 3327-3334. https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20203888
  7. Anderson, M.S., Ronning, E.A., De Vries, R., Martinson, B.C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 437-461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5
  8. Anderson, M.S., Shaw, M.A., Steneck, N.H., Konkle, E., Kamata, T. (2013). Research integrity and misconduct in the academic profession. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research Springer, 28, 217–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5836-0_5
  9. Andronic, O., Bolocan, A., Păduraru, D. N., Ion, D., Musat, F. (2022). How much do Romanian medical students know about research ethics? A survey. European Science Editing, 48, e76261. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e76261
  10. Arksey, H., O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology, 8(1), 19-32.https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
  11. Ateudjieu, J., Tchio-Nighie, K.H., Kemta Lekpa, F., Koutio Douanla, I.M., Kiadjieu Dieumo, F.F., Ntsekendio, P.N., Naah, F., Bekolo, C.E., Bisseck, A.C. (2022). Training needs of health researchers in research ethics in Cameroon: a cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Education, 22(1), 697. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03767-z
  12. Azakir, B., Mobarak, H., Al Najjar, S., El Naga, A.A., Mashaal, N. (2020). Knowledge and attitudes of physicians toward research ethics and scientific misconduct in Lebanon. BMC Medical Ethics, 21(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00475-5
  13. Chen, L., Li, Y., Wang, J., Li, Y., Tan, X., Guo, X. (2024). Knowledge, attitudes and practices about research misconduct among medical residents in southwest China: A cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), 284. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05277-6
  14. Chua, J.Y.L., Lee, C.S.L., Yeo, K.P., Ali, Y., Lim, C.L. (2022). Perception and reaction of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) researchers to different forms of research integrity education modality. BMC Medical Ethics, 23(1), 85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00824-6
  15. Costa, M., Crabtree, C., Holbein, J.B., Landgrave, M. (2023). Is that ethical? An exploration of political scientists’ views on research ethics. Research & Politics, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680231209553
  16. Das, J., Rout, S.K. (2023). Taxonomy of research misconducts: A conceptual analysis. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts, 11(4), f523-f535. http://www.ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2304684.pdf
  17. De Boer, H., Enders, J., Schimank, U. (2007). On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In D. Jansen (Ed.), New forms of governance in research organizations, Springer, 1,137–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5831-8_5
  18. Dhingra, D., Mishra, D. (2014). Publication misconduct among medical professionals in India. Indian journal of medical ethics, 11(2), 104–107. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2014.026
  19. Drenth, P.J. (2012). A European code of conduct for research integrity. Promoting research integrity in a global environment, 161.https://allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/A-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity_final.10.10.pdf
  20. Evans, N., Buljan, I., Valenti, E., Bouter, L., Marusic, A., De Vries, R., Widdershoven, G., EnTIRE Consortium. (2022). Stakeholders' experiences of research integrity support in universities: A qualitative study in three European countries. Science and Engineering Ethics, 28(5), 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00390-5
  21. Fanelli, D. (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. Plos One, 4 (5), e5738.
  22. Feenstra, R.A., Delgado Lopez-Cozar, E., Pallares-Dominguez, D. (2021). Research misconduct in the fields of ethics and philosophy: Researchers' perceptions in Spain, Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00278-w
  23. Felaefel, M., Salem, M., Jaafar, R., Jassim, G., Edwards, H., Rashid-Doubell, F., Yousri, R., Ali, N.M., Silverman, H. (2018). A cross-sectional survey study to assess prevalence and attitudes regarding research misconduct among investigators in the Middle East. Journal of academic ethics, 16(1), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9295-9
  24. Fraser, H., Parker, T., Nakagawa, S., Barnett, A., Fidler, F. (2018). Questionable research practices in ecology and evolution. Plos One, 13 (7), e0200303. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200303
  25. Gasparyan, A.Y., Ayvazyan, L., Blackmore, H., Kitas, G.D. (2011). Writing a narrative biomedical review: Considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatology International, 31(11), 1409-1417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-011-1999-3
  26. Gopalakrishna, G., Ter Riet, G., Vink, G., Stoop, I., Wicherts, J.M., Bouter, L.M. (2022). Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. Plos One, 17 (2), e0263023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023
  27. Grosek, S., Pleterski Rigler, D., Podbregar, M., Erculj, V. (2023). Knowledge of and attitudes towards medical research ethics among first year doctoral students in Slovenia at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana. BMC Medical Education, 23(1), 828. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04809-w
  28. Haven, T.L., Tijdink, J.K., Martinson, B.C., Bouter, L.M. (2019). Perceptions of research integrity climate differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields: Results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Plos One, 14(1), e0210599. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210599
  29. Hofmann, B., Bredahl Jensen, L., Eriksen, M.B., Helgesson, G., Juth, N., Holm, S. (2020). Research integrity among Phd students at the faculty of medicine: A comparison of three Scandinavian universities. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 15(4), 320-329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264620929230
  30. Hofmann, B., Holm, S. (2019). Research integrity: environment, experience, or ethos?. Research Ethics, 15(3-4), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016119880844
  31. Hofmann, B., Thoresen, M., Holm, S. (2023). Research integrity attitudes and behaviors are difficult to alter: Results from a ten years follow-up study in Norway. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 18(1-2), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221150032
  32. Israel, M., Hay, I. (2006). Research ethics for social scientists. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209779
  33. Kaiser, M., Drivdal, L., Hjellbrekke, J., Ingierd, H., Rekdal, O.B. (2021). Questionable research practices and misconduct among Norwegian researchers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 28(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00351-4
  34. Kumar, B.S. (2020) Research misconduct. National Journal of Basis Medical Science, 11(2), 217-218. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355392442_Research_Misconduct
  35. Maggio, L., Dong, T., Driessen, E., Artino, Jr. A. (2019). Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(2), 74-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0501-x
  36. Martinson, B.C., Anderson, M.S., De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a
  37. Mathur, A., Lean, S.F., Maun, C., Walker, N., Cano, A., Wood, M.E. (2019). Research ethics in inter- and multi-disciplinary teams: Differences in disciplinary interpretations. Plos One, 14(11), e0225837. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225837
  38. Metcalfe, J., Wheat, K., Munafò, M., Parry, J. (2020). Research integrity: A landscape study, Vitae.
  39. Mnasri, S., Jaber, F. (2024). How do cancer research scientists deal with machines and consumables? Exploring research ethics from an inductive ethnographic perspective. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 392. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02920-x
  40. Nishimura, R., Takeuchi, J., Sakuma, M., Uchida, K., Higaonna, M., Kinjo, N., Sakakibara, F., Nakamura, T., Kosaka, S., Yoshimura, S., Ueda, S., Morimoto, T. (2021). Experience and awareness of research integrity among Japanese physicians: A nationwide cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 11(10), e052351. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052351
  41. Okonta, P.I., Rossouw, T. (2014). Misconduct in research: A descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country. BMC Medical Ethics, 15, 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-25
  42. Olesen, A.P., Amin, L., Mahadi, Z. (2018). In their own words: Research misconduct from the perspective of researchers in Malaysian universities. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24 (6), 1755-1776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9997-9
  43. Palla, I.A., Singson, M. (2023). How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A case study of Indian researchers. Accountability in Research, 30(8), 707–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2078712
  44. Poduthase, H., Garza, L., Wood, J. (2018). Scientific research misconduct in social science research: What is it and how can we address it?. Sociology International Journal, 2(2), 85-86. https://doi.org/10.15406/sij.2018.02.00036
  45. Pupovac, V., Prijic-Samarzija, S., Petrovecki, M. (2017). Research misconduct in the Croatian scientific community: A survey assessing the forms and characteristics of research misconduct. Science and engineering ethics, 23(1), 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9767-0
  46. Roy, S., Edwards, M.A. (2023). NSF Fellows' perceptions about incentives, research misconduct, and scientific integrity in STEM academia, Scientific Reports, 13(1,) 5701.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32445-3
  47. Russell, W.M.S., Burch, R.L., Hume, C.W. (1959). The principles of humane experimental technique, 238. London: Methuen. https://caat.jhsph.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Addendum.docx
  48. Satalkar, P., Shaw, D. (2019) How do researchers acquire and develop notions of research integrity? A qualitative study among biomedical researchers in Switzerland. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), 72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0410-x
  49. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M.G., Macey, W.H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809
  50. Sivasubramaniam, S.D., Cosentino, M., Ribeiro, L., Marino, F. (2021). Unethical practices within medical research and publication– An exploratory study. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00072-y
  51. Steneck, N.H. (2003) ORI introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Office of Research Integrity. https://ori.hhs.gov/ori-introduction-responsible-conduct-research
  52. Steneck, N.H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0006-y
  53. Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460687
  54. Tang L. (2019). Five ways China must cultivate research integrity. Nature, 575(7784), 589–591. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03613-1
  55. Tarboush, N.A., Alkayed, Z., Alzoubi, K.H., Al-Delaimy, W.K. (2020). The understanding of research ethics at health sciences schools in Jordan: A cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), Article 121. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02040-5
  56. The Joanna Briggs Institute. (2017). Checklist for prevalence studies: Critical appraisal tools for use in JBI systematic reviews. https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
  57. Tiruneh, G., Yilma, M., Wakuma, B., Abdisa, E., Bayisa, L., Nichols, M., Bedeker, A., Tiffin, N. (2024). Compliance with research ethics in epidemiological studies targeted to conflict-affected areas in Western Ethiopia: Validity of informed consent (VIC) by information comprehension and voluntariness (ICV). BMC Medical Ethics, 25(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01003-5
  58. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K.K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M.D.J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Pronovost, C., McGowan, J., Jadevere, M., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., Straus, S.E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
  59. Troughton, L., Obasi, A. (2022). An exploration of practices affecting research integrity in global health partnerships. BMJ Global Health, 7(8), Article e009092. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009092
  60. Vie, K.J. (2020). How should researchers cope with the ethical demands of discovering research misconduct? Going beyond reporting and whistleblowing. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 16(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-020-00102-6
  61. Wolff, W., Baumann, L., Englert, C. (2018). Self-reports from behind the scenes: Questionable research practices and rates of replication in ego depletion research. PLOS ONE, 13(6), Article e0199554. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199554
  62. Zhao, L., Li, Y., Feng, Y., Zhang, H., Zhang, M. (2022). Research on the influencing factors of scientific researchers' integrity based on grounded theory. Procedia Computer Science, 214, 1467–1475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.11.332