Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Mar 25:15:25.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-25.

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

Affiliations

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

Patrick I Okonta et al. BMC Med Ethics. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Nicholas S, editor. Department of Health and Social Services. ORI Introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Washington: US government printing office; 2007. p. 164.
    1. Jeffers BR, Whittemore R. Research environments that promote integrity. Nurs Res. 2005;54(1):63–70. - PubMed
    1. 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. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-33225-3_13. - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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. doi: 10.1007/s11948-010-9208-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One. 2009;4(5):e5738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources