Prevalence of Scientific Misconduct Among a Group of Researchers in Nigeria

Abstract

Background There is a dearth of information on the prevalence of scientific misconduct from Nigeria. Objectives This study aimed at determining the prevalence of scientific misconduct in a group of researchers in Nigeria. Factors associated with the prevalence were ascertained. Method A descriptive study of researchers who attended a scientific conference in 2010 was conducted using the adapted Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire- Revised (SMQ-R). Results Ninety-one researchers (68.9%) admitted having committed at least one of the eight listed forms of scientific misconduct. Disagreement about authorship was the most common form of misconduct committed (36.4%) while plagiarism was the least (9.2%). About 42% of researchers had committed falsification of data or plagiarism. Analysis of specific acts of misconduct showed that committing plagiarism was inversely associated with years in research (Fisher exact p-value = 0.02); falsifying data was related to perceived low effectiveness of the institution’s rules and procedures for reducing scientific misconduct (X2 = 6.44, p-value = 0.01); and succumbing to pressure from study sponsor to engage in unethical practice was related to sex of researcher (Fisher exact p-value = 0.02). Conclusions The emergent data from this study is a cause for serious concern and calls for prompt intervention. The best response to reducing scientific misconduct will proceed from measures that contain both elements of prevention and enforcement. Training on research ethics has to be integrated into the curriculum of undergraduate and postgraduate students while provision should be made for in-service training of researchers. Penalties against acts of scientific misconduct should be enforced at institutional and national levels.

Responsible conduct of research: enhancing local opportunities

“…In the absence of an office of research integrity in Uganda, enhanced monitoring of research and scholarly works can be achieved by empowering existing research ethics committees (REC) through better funding and personnel training to ensure that they perform their oversight function more efficiently. Of most importance is the active and passive monitoring of approved research studies to ensure compliance with regulatory standards 7 .…”

“…Academic and scientific community sensitization: There is also need to sensitize the academic and scientific community about scientific misconduct 7 . Research institutions and professional societies, working with government, should make efforts to ensure that professional standards for RCR are clear, accessible, taught, and monitored.…”

“…Health research ethics and responsible conduct of research should be incorporated into training curriculums at both undergraduate and graduate levels. Scientists should receive regular refresher courses and continuing professional education on ethics, research integrity and the responsible conduct of research 7 . This should be mandatory and can be delivered through locally organized training or through web based training from reputable sites like National Institutes of Health office of extramural research 24 and, Training and Resources in Research Ethics Evaluation (TRREE) 25 .…”

“…This can be achieved through the establishment of national and institutional oversight bodies responsible for developing national guidelines on research integrity as well as preventing, identifying and investigating cases of scientific misconduct 7 . In this regard, MakCHS is in the process of developing a policy on scientific integrity.…”

“…Those found guilty ought to be punished and those vindicated should be protected. To avert gross violations of research integrity, the scientific community must be alert and more vigilant at preventing, detecting and admonishing scientific misconduct 7 . Institutions must devise mechanisms of identifying circumstances or situations that could culminate in incidents or allegations of research misconduct early.…”