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

被引:22
作者
Felaefel M. [1 ]
Salem M. [1 ]
Jaafar R. [2 ]
Jassim G. [3 ]
Edwards H. [4 ]
Rashid-Doubell F. [3 ]
Yousri R. [5 ]
Ali N.M. [6 ]
Silverman H. [4 ]
机构
[1] American University in Cairo, New Cairo
[2] American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut
[3] Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland - Medical University of Bahrain, Busaiteen
[4] University of Maryland School of Medicine, 110 S. Paca St, Baltimore, 21201, MD
[5] Cairo University, Cairo
[6] Suez Canal University, Ismailia
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Middle East; Research ethics; Research misconduct; Responsible conduct in research;
D O I
10.1007/s10805-017-9295-9
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
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. 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. 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”. 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. © 2017, Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
引用
收藏
页码:71 / 87
页数:16
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
Adeleye O.A., Adebamowo C.A., Factors associated with research wrongdoing in Nigeria, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7, 5, pp. 15-24, (2012)
[2]  
Bamford J., Sergiou K., International students and plagiarism: an analysis of the reasons for plagiarism among nternational foundation students, Investigations in University Teaching and Learning, 2, 2, pp. 17-22, (2005)
[3]  
Bohannon J., Study of massive preprint archive hints at the geography of plagiarism, (2014)
[4]  
Broome M.E., Pryor E., Habermann B., Pulley L., Kincaid H., The scientific misconduct questionnaire--revised (SMQ-R): validation and psychometric testing, Accountability in Research, 12, 4, pp. 263-280, (2005)
[5]  
Brown S., Kalichman M., Effects of training in the responsible conduct of research: a survey of graduate students in experimental sciences, Science and Engineering Ethics, 4, pp. 487-498, (1998)
[6]  
Bruhn J.G., The functionality of gray area ethics in organizations, Journal of Business Ethics, 89, (2009)
[7]  
Bursac Z., Gauss C.H., Williams D.K., Hosmer D.W., Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression, Source Code for Biology and Medicine, 3, (2008)
[8]  
Buzzelli D.E., The definition of misconduct in science: a view from NSF, Science, 259, 5095, pp. 584-585, (1993)
[9]  
Citron D.T., Ginsparg P., Patterns of text reuse in scientific corpus, Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sceinces, 112, 1, pp. 25-30, (2015)
[10]  
Davis M.S., The role of culture in research misconduct, Accountability in Research, 10, 3, pp. 189-201, (2003)