Iranian Journal of Public Health 2017. 46(10):1374-1378.

Research Misconduct: A Report from a Developing Country
Majid KHADEM-REZAIYAN, Maliheh DADGARMOGHADDAM

Abstract


Abstract

Background: Cheating rate is rising and engages newer methods. This study performed to estimate the rate of research misconduct in the thesis of undergraduate and postgraduate medical students in 2015.

Methods: In this cross sectional study, all undergraduate and postgraduate medical students graduated during the study period in 2015, from the School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran were asked to fill a small checklist anonymously. It consisted of two demographic questions and two other ones for estimation of research misconduct. All three major types of research misconduct were explained in the checklist. We used the Randomized Response Technique for sensitive question in this survey. We asked the respondent to choose one question randomly and answer to it. The probability of selection of each question was equal.

Results: There were 149 filled questionnaires out of which 44 (31%) were graduated for General Practitioner, 63 (44%) for Residency, 31(21%) for Master Degree and 6 (4%) for Ph.D. Fifty-two percent (75) were male. More than half of participants were graduated between 2011 and 2012. The majority of participants were native (104, 81%). Undergraduate students had an estimation of 19% research misconduct in performing the thesis while this was 26% of postgraduate students. Males were nearly two times comparing to females in this issue (30% vs. 16%).

Conclusion: This high estimation must be considered in future policy making about observing strictly on researches.

 

 


Keywords


Research misconduct, Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism

Full Text:

PDF

References


Murdock TB, Beauchamp AS, Hinton A (2008). Predictors of cheating and cheating attributions: Does classroom context influence cheating and blame for cheating? Eur J Psychol Educ, 23(4): 477-492.

Lin CHS, Wen LYM (2007). Academic dishonesty in higher education: A nationwide study in Taiwan. J High Educ, 54(1): 85-97.

Murdock TB, Anderman EM (2006). Motivational perspectives on student cheating: toward an integrated model of academic dishonesty. Educ Psychol, 41(3): 129-145.

Breen KJ (2003). Misconduct in medical re-search: whose responsibility? Intern Med J, 33(4):186-91.

Sox HC, Rennie D (2006). Research misconduct, retraction, and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med, 144(8):609-13.

Zhang M, Grieneisen ML (2013). The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media. Scientometrics, 96(2):573-587.

Pascal CB (2000). Scientific misconduct and research integrity for the bench scientist. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med, 224(4): 220-30.

Evans I (1998). Dealing with research misconduct in the United King-dom. Conduct unbecoming--the MRC's approach. BMJ, 316(7146):1728-9.

Gilbert FJ, Denison AR (2003). Research Misconduct. Clin Radiol, 58(7):499-504.

Khamesan A, Amiri MA (2011). The study of academic cheating among male and female students. Ethics in Science & Technology, 6(1):53-61. (In Persian)

Nikpour H. Investigation of medical students' opinions on research fraud in thesis and its frequency [MD thesis]. School of Medicine, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Iran; 2004.

Fazly Bazzaz BS, Sadeghi R (2012). Publication Ethics: A Case Series with Recommendations According to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Iran J Basic Med Sci, 15(5):1003-7.

Nakhaei N, Nikpour H (2005). Investigation of medical students' opinions on research fraud in thesis and its frequency. Strides Dev Med Educ, 2(1):10-17.

Warner SL (1965). Randomized Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias. J Am Stat Assoc, 60(309):63-6.

Greenberg B G, Abul-Ela ALA, Horvitz DG (1969). The Unrelated Question Randomized Response Model: Theoretical Framework. J Am Stat Assoc, 64(326):520-539.

Greenberg BG, Kuebler Jr RR, Abernathy JR, Horvitz DG (1971). Application of the Randomized Response Technique in Obtaining Quantitative Data. J Am Stat Assoc, 66(334): 243-250.

Fanelli D (2009). How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS One, 4(5):e5738.

George SL (1997). Perspectives on scientific misconduct and fraud in clinical trials. Chance, 10(4):3-5.

Shuster E (1997). Fifty years later: The significance of the Nuremberg Code. N Engl J Med, 337(20):1436-40.

Ankier SI (2002). Dishonesty, misconduct and fraud in clinical research: An international problem. J Int Med Res, 30(4):357-65.

Christie B (2000). Doctors revise declaration of Helsinki. BMJ, 321(7266): 913.

Hamblin TJ (1981). Fake. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed), 283(6307): 1671-1674.

Franzen M, Rödder S, Weingart P (2007). Fraud: Causes and culprits as perceived by science and the media. Institutional changes, rather than individual motivations, encourage misconduct. EMBO Rep, 8(1): 3-7.

Westfall RS (1973). Newton and the fudge factor. Science, 179(4075):751-8.

Ranstam J, Buyse M, George S et al (2000). Fraud in medical research: An international survey of biostatisticians. Control Clin Trials, 21(5):415-27.

Martinson B, Anderson M, De Vries R (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043):737-8.

Claxton LD (2005). Scientific authorship Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutat Res, 589(1):17-30.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.