Back to all available

Assessing knowledge, attitude and practice regarding research misconduct among medical practitioners – a systematic review.

global-health
ethical-issues
science-and-medical-education
science-policy

Abstract

Background: Research misconduct, plagiarism, data fabrication, and falsification remain major challenges, affecting the credibility and integrity of the scientific literature. It is crucial to comprehend the knowledge, attitude, and practice of medical practitioners regarding research misconduct to identify gaps and implement effective interventions. This systematic review aims to assess existing literature on the understanding, perceptions, and self-reported behaviors of medical professionals concerning research misconduct.

Methodology: A comprehensive search of electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, was conducted to identify relevant studies. Cross-sectional studies that assessed the knowledge, attitude, and practice of medical practitioners on research misconduct were included. The PRISMA guidelines were used for screening, selection, and data extraction procedures. The included studies were analyzed for methodological quality, and key findings were synthesized to identify common trends and gaps.

Results: The review included 4 studies from different geographical regions, and the sample size ranged from 146 to 6200 study participants. The findings revealed that while most medical practitioners had a basic understanding of research misconduct, significant knowledge gaps persisted, particularly regarding institutional policies and ethical guidelines. Diverse opinions existed on minor infractions, with some using academic pressure as justification for actions like selective reporting, honorary authorship, and data manipulation. A significant percentage of participants self-reported engaging in unethical behavior, such as plagiarism and falsification. A major factor in the frequency of misconduct, according to studies, is a lack of formal training in research ethics.

Conclusion: The knowledge, attitudes, and practices of medical professionals regarding research misconduct differ, and unethical research practices are a result of ethical training and awareness gaps. Mitigating research misconduct requires establishing a culture of integrity in medical research, strengthening research ethics education, and putting institutional control systems in place. Future studies ought to concentrate on assessing the results of initiatives meant to enhance medical professionals' ethical research practices.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].