A proposed strategy for research misconduct policy: A review on misconduct management in health research system

Djalalinia, Shirin; Owlia, Parviz; Afzali, H Malek; Ghanei, Mostafa; Peykari, Niloofar

doi:10.4103/2008-7802.186227

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The prevalence of research misconducts by Iranian researchers in the field of medicine has been expressed by several medical journals ( 21 ). Other studies also emphasized on the high rate of scientific misconduct in Iran's health system, which is due to the policies of this system regarding medical research and misleading orientations stimulating misconduct in medical research ( 19 , 24 , 29 ). Hence, this work aimed at translating, assessing, and validating the psychometric properties of the SMQ-R and PPQ as valid and reliable tools to be used in researches in Persian.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric properties of Persian version of the research misconduct questionnaire (PRMQ)

Shamsoddin¹,

Janani²,

Ghamari³

et al. 2020

jmehm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessment of scientific misconduct is considered to be an increasingly important topic in medical sciences. Providing a definition for scientific research misconduct and proposing practical methods for evaluating and measuring it in various fields of medicine discipline are required. This study aimed at assessing the psychometric properties of Scientific Research Misconduct-Revised (SMQ-R) and Publication Pressure Questionnaires (PPQ). After translation and merging of these two questionnaires, the validity of the translated draft was evaluated by 11-member expert panel using Content Validity Index (CVI) and Content Validity Ratio (CVR). Reliability of the final questionnaire, completed by 100 participants randomly chosen from medical academic members, was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The final version was named Persian Research Misconduct Questionnaire (PRMQ) and consisted of 63 question items. The item-level content validity indices of 61 questions were above 0.79, and reliability assessment showed that 6 out of 7 subscales had alpha values higher than 0.6. Hence, PRMQ can be considered an acceptable, valid and reliable tool to measure research misconduct in biomedical sciences researches in Iran.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric properties of Persian version of the research misconduct questionnaire (PRMQ)

Shamsoddin¹,

Janani²,

Ghamari³

et al. 2020

jmehm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fabrikovanje i falsifikovanje podataka su ponašanja koja se najčešće povezuju sa nedoličnim ponašanjem istraživača, i spadaju u namerne greške [5]. Fabrikovanje znači da su podaci jednostavno izmišljeni.…”

Section: Zloupotreba Istraživanja I Njene Manifestacijeunclassified

“…Slobodan TODOROVIĆ 1,2 , Borislav TOŠKOVIĆ 1,2 , Nataša ČOLAKOVIĆ 2,3 , Davor MRDA 2,4 , Jasna GAČIĆ 1,2 , Tatjana TODOROVIĆ 2,5…”

Section: Review Articleunclassified

Scientific misconduct

Todorović¹,

Tošković²,

Čolaković³

et al. 2020

Halo 194

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the creation of a global computer network, the internet, all manner of information has become available to scientists and everyone else around the world. The exchange of information gives scientists insight into the most recent scientific discoveries while enabling them at the same time to use the information for their research. Scientists and experts must be sure that their colleagues' research is valid, objective and the results complete. These scientific research characteristics represent scientific honesty. Scientific misconduct can take various forms and can be present in all phases of the scientific research process, but most commonly takes the form of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. The reasons for scientific misconduct can be personal, professional and financial. There is also a "grey zone", which consists of data manipulation and selection, reference citing mistakes, multiple and salami publications, problematic authorships. Every type of misconduct has a detrimental effect on the scientific community. In the public eye, scientists are benevolent seekers of truth with high moral integrity, whose work is of key value to society. Any type of scientific misconduct serves to dishonour the scientific community but also brings confusion into the work of other researchers, therefore significantly slowing down scientific discovery in whole. Digitalization and technological advancement significantly contribute to the early discovery, elimination and sanctioning of any kind of research misconduct. A significant improvement in solving these problems can be achieved through adequate education of young researchers and introducing laws that precisely define penalties for breaking the code of good scientific practice.

show abstract

“…It wastes the energy, time, and money of other researchers and can adversely affect the health of people. [ 1 2 3 ]…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the other words, verifying the authenticity of data such as the actual patient's presence in the research is not being considered when the research ended. [ 3 9 ]…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%