0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      A Cross-Sectional Survey Study to Assess Prevalence and Attitudes Regarding Research Misconduct among Investigators in the Middle East

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S1"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d7571271e197">Background</h5> <p id="P1">Recent studies from Western countries indicate significant levels of questionable research practices, but similar data from low and middle-income countries are limited. Our aims were to assess the prevalence of and attitudes regarding research misconduct among researchers in several universities in the Middle East and to identify factors that might account for our findings. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S2"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d7571271e202">Methods</h5> <p id="P2">We distributed an anonymous questionnaire to a convenience sample of investigators at several universities in Egypt, Lebanon, and Bahrain. Participants were asked to a) self-report their extent of research misconducts, as well as their knowledge of colleagues engaging in similar research misconducts and b) provide their extent of agreement with certain attitudes about research misconduct. We used descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate logistic regression statistics to analyze the data. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S3"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d7571271e207">Results</h5> <p id="P3">Data from 278 participants showed a high prevalence of misconduct, as 59.4% of our respondents self-reported to committing at least one misbehaviors and 74.5% reported having knowledge of any misbehaviors among any of their colleagues. The most common type of self-report misconduct was “circumventing research ethics regulations” (50.5%) followed by “fabrication and falsification” (28.6%). A significant predictor of misconduct included a lack of “prior ethics training”. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="S4"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d7571271e212">Conclusion</h5> <p id="P4">Scientific misconduct represents a significant issue in several universities in the Middle East. The demonstration that a lack of “prior ethics training” was a significant predictor of misconduct should lead to educational initiatives in research integrity. Further studies are needed to confirm whether our results can be generalized to other universities in the Middle East. </p> </div>

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Social Structure and Anomie

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scientists behaving badly.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Scientists' perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors.

              Policymakers concerned about maintaining the integrity of science have recently expanded their attention from a focus on misbehaving individuals to characteristics of the environments in which scientists work. Little empirical evidence exists about the role of organizational justice in promoting or hindering scientific integrity. Our findings indicate that when scientists believe they are being treated unfairly they are more likely to behave in ways that compromise the integrity of science. Perceived violations of distributive and procedural justice were positively associated with self-reports of misbehavior among scientists.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Journal of Academic Ethics
                J Acad Ethics
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                1570-1727
                1572-8544
                March 2018
                October 13 2017
                March 2018
                : 16
                : 1
                : 71-87
                Article
                10.1007/s10805-017-9295-9
                5945220
                29755305
                e4ca94ba-aeeb-4893-b717-dfa0957a191b
                © 2018

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article