Assessing the Prevalence of Publication Misconduct among Iranian Authors Using a Double List Experiment
,
Abstract
Background: This study was done to determine the prevalence of publication misconduct among Iranian authors.
Methods: Data were collected through an email survey of corresponding authors of papers published in Iranian journals indexed in Scopus during 2009-2011. Using the double list experiment, these individuals were indirectly questioned about committing one of the five misconducts including duplicate publication, falsification, guest authorship, plagiarism, and fabrication over the past year.
Results: The survey was sent to 2321 individuals; 100 emails bounced, and of the remaining, 813 (36.60%) people responded to the questions. The prevalence rates were 4.15% for fabrication, 4.90% for plagiarism, 18.10% for guest authorship, 12.65% for falsification of the study methods, and -5.40% for duplicate publication. Among respondent 56.50% trusted the method and confidentiality of the survey and 6.50% did not trust the method or confidentiality at all.
Conclusion: We found that the double list experiment method is simple and reliable for use in the academic community, and it can be conducted easily in an e-survey. According to our results, the most common misconducts among Iranian authors are guest authorship and falsification of the methodology. In light of the negative and maleficent impact of publication misconduct in the scientific society, we recommend raising awareness and educating authors and investigators in this regard. To determine the accuracy of the method used in this study, further studies on publication misconduct using a control group and direct questioning, as well as other indirect methods are suggested.
Mavrinac M, Brumini G, Bilić-Zulle L, et al. (2010). Construction and Validation of Attitudes Toward Plagiarism Questionnare. Croat Med J, 51(3):195-201.
Mason PR (2009). Plagiarism in scientific publications. J Infect Dev Ctries, 3(1):1-4.
Brice J, Bligh J (2005). Author misconduct: not just the editors' responsibility. Med Educ, 39(1):83-89.
Mundt LA (2008). Perceptions of scientific misconduct among graduate allied health students relative to ethics education and gender. J Allied Health, 37(4):221-224.
Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A,109(42):17028-17033.
DuBois JM (2004). Is compliance a professional virtue of researchers? Reflections on promoting the responsible conduct of research. Ethics Behav, 14(4):383-395.
Kenkre JE, Semple M (2003). Research fraud: Why nurses should become aware. J Res Nursing, 8(1):47-56.
Dalton DR, Wimbush JC, Daily CM (1994). Using the unmatched count technique (UCT) to estimate base rates for sensitive behavior. Pers Psychol, 47(4):817-829.
Raghavarao D, Federer WT (1979). Block total response as an alternative to the randomized response method in surveys. J R Stat Soc, B 41(1):40-45.
Miller JD (1984). A new survey technique for studying deviant behavior. George Washington University.
Berinsky AJ (1999). The two faces of public opinion. Am J Pol Sci, pp.: 1209-1230.
Jann B, Krumpal I, Naeher AF (2011). Plagiarism in student papers: prevalence estimates using special techniques for sensitive questions. Journal of Economics and Statistics, 231(5-6):749-760.
Glynn AN. (2010). What can we learn with statistical truth serum? Design and analysis of the list experiment. available from: http://isites. harvard. edu/fs/docs/icb. topic646669. files/StatTruthSerum. pdf [June 23 2015].
Mortaz Hejri S, Zendehdel K, Asghari F, et al. (2013). Academic disintegrity among medical students: a randomised response technique study. Med Educ, 47(2):144-153.
Roberts DL, St John FA (2014). Estimating the prevalence of researcher misconduct: a study of UK academics within biological sciences. PeerJ, 2:e562.
McFarlin BK, Lyons TS, Navalta JW (2010). Prevalence of Plagiarism in Manuscript Submissions and Solutions. Int J Exerc Sci, 3(3): 68–69.
Fanelli D (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90(3):891-904.
Dingell JD (1993). Misconduct in medical research. N Engl J Med, 328(22):1610-1615.
Orton C (2010). Concerns of Editors and Publishers: Plagiarism, Rights of Authors, Open Access, etc. Paper presented at: World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, September 7-12, Munich, Germany.
Wislar JS, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, et al. (2011). Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. BMJ, 25;343:d6128.
Jefferson T (1998). Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: Scientific misconduct or necessity? Sci Eng Ethics, 4(2):135-140.
Susser M, Yankauer A (1993). Prior, duplicate, repetitive, fragmented, and redundant publication and editorial decisions. Am J Public Health, 83(6):792-793.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 45 No 7 (2016) | |
| Section | Original Article(s) | |
| Keywords | ||
| Publication misconduct Double list experiment Unmatched count technique Iran | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
