Misconduct in research: a descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country

BMC Medical Ethics

Theresa Rossouw¹  Patrick I Okonta² 

[1] Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa;Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Delta State University, Abraka, Delta State, Nigeria

关键词: Associated factors;    Attitudes;    Perception;    Research misconduct;   

Others  :  799563
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-15-25

 received in 2013-04-05, accepted in 2014-03-21,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Misconduct in research tarnishes the reputation, credibility and integrity of research institutions. Studies on research or scientific misconduct are still novel in developing countries. In this study, we report on the attitudes, perceptions and factors related to the work environment thought to be associated with research misconduct in a group of researchers in Nigeria - a developing country.

Method

A survey of researchers attending a scientific conference was done using an adapted Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R). Initial descriptive analysis of individual items using frequencies and proportions for all quantitative data was performed. Thereafter, Likert scale responses were transformed into dichotomous responses. Fisher exact test was performed for associations as appropriate. A two-tailed p-value of less than 0.05 was accepted as significant.

Result

Half of the respondents (50.4%) were aware of a colleague who had committed misconduct, defined as “non-adherence to rules, regulations, guidelines, and commonly accepted professional codes or norms”. Over 88% of the researchers were concerned about the perceived amount of misconduct prevalent in their institution and 96.2% believed that one or more forms of scientific misconduct had occurred in their workplace. More than half (52.7%) rated the severity of penalties for scientific misconduct in their work environment as low. Furthermore¸ the majority (56.1%) were of the view that the chance of getting caught for scientific misconduct in their work environment was low.

Conclusion

Researchers in Nigeria perceive that scientific misconduct is commonplace in their institutions, but are however worried about the negative effects of scientific misconduct on the credibility of scientific research. We recommend that researchers be empowered with the knowledge and virtues necessary for self-regulation that advance research integrity. Research institutions should however also step into their role of fostering a responsible research ethic and discouraging misconduct.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Okonta and Rossouw; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Department of Health and Social Services: ORI Introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Edited by Nicholas S. Washington: US government printing office; 2007:164.
• [2]Jeffers BR, Whittemore R: Research environments that promote integrity. Nurs Res 2005, 54(1):63-70.
• [3]Abbrecht P, Davidian N, Merrill S, Price AR: The role of the office of research integrity in cancer clinical trials. Cancer Treat Res 2007, 132:231-239.
• [4]Dahlberg JE, Davidian NM: Scientific Forensics: How the Office of Research Integrity can Assist Institutional Investigations of Research Misconduct During Oversight Review. Sci Eng Ethics 2010, 16(4):713-35.
• [5]Fanelli D: How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 2009, 4(5):e5738.
• [6]Ana J, Koehlmoos T, Smith R, Yan LL: Research misconduct in low- and middle-income countries. PLoS Med 2013, 10(3):e1001315.
• [7]Okonta P, Rossouw T: Prevalence of Scientific Misconduct Among a Group of Researchers in Nigeria. 2012. Dev World Bioeth, p. doi:10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00339.x
• [8]Adeleye OA, Adebamowo CA: Factors associated with research wrongdoing in Nigeria. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2012, 7(5):15-24.
• [9]Martinson BC, Crain AL, Anderson MS, De Vries R: Institutions expectations for researchers' self-funding, federal grant holding, and private industry involvement: manifold drivers of self-interest and researcher behavior. Acad Med 2009, 84(11):1491-9.
• [10]Davis MS: The role of culture in research misconduct. Account Res 2003, 10(3):189-201.
• [11]Hackett EJ: A social control perspective on scientific misconduct. J Higher Educ 1994, 65(3):242-60.
• [12]Davis MS, Riske ML: Preventing scientific misconduct: Insights from convicted offenders. In Investigating research integrity: Proceedings of the first ORI research conference on research integrity. Edited by Steneck NH, Scheetz MD. Rockville MD: Office of research Integrity; 2002.
• [13]Davis MS, Riske-Morris M, Diaz SR: Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: evidence from ORI case files. Sci Eng Ethics 2007, 13(4):395-414.
• [14]Federal Ministry of Health: The national code for health research ethics. Abuja: Federal ministry of Health; 2007.
• [15]Broome ME, Pryor E, Habermann B, Pulley L, Kincaid H: The Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire–Revised (SMQ-R): validation and psychometric testing. Account Res 2005, 12(4):263-80.
• [16]Pryor ER, Habermann B, Broome ME: Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: a national survey. J Med Ethics 2007, 33(6):365-9.
• [17]Rankin M, Esteves MD: Perceptions of scientific misconduct in nursing. Nurs Res 1997, 46(5):270-6.
• [18]Cohen AK: The Sociology of the Deviant Act: Anomie Theory and Beyond. Am Sociol Rev 1965, 30:5-14.
• [19]Hofmann B, Myhr AI, Holm S: Scientific dishonesty–a nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway. BMC Med Ethics 2013, 14:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Swazey J, Anderson M, Louis K: Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist 1993, 81:542-53.
• [21]Kalichman MW, Friedman PJ: A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics. Acad Med 1992, 67(11):769-75.
• [22]Geggie D: A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards research fraud. J Med Ethics 2001, 27(5):344-6.
• [23]National Research Council of the National Academics In Integrity in scientific research: creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington: The National Academic press; 2002.
• [24]Vuckovic-Dekic L, Gavrilovic D, Kezic I, Bogdanovic G, Brkic S: Science ethics education part II: changes in attitude toward scientific fraud among medical researchers after a short course in science ethics. J BUON 2012, 17(2):391-5.
• [25]de Vries R, Anderson MS, Martinson BC: Normal Misbehavior: Scientists Talk about the Ethics of Research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2006, 1(1):43-50.
• [26]Franzen M, Rodder S, Weingart P: Fraud: causes and culprits as perceived by science and the media. Institutional changes, rather than individual motivations, encourage misconduct. EMBO Rep 2007, 8(1):3-7.
• [27]Sovacool BK: Using criminalization and due process to reduce scientific misconduct. Am J Bioeth 2005, 5(5):W1-7.
• [28]Redman BK, Merz JF: Sociology. Scientific misconduct: do the punishments fit the crime? Science 2008, 321(5890):775.
• [29]Solutions, not scapegoats Nature 2008, 453(7198):957.