Literature DB >> 29249021

In Their Own Words: Research Misconduct from the Perspective of Researchers in Malaysian Universities.

Angelina P Olesen1, Latifah Amin2, Zurina Mahadi1.   

Abstract

Published data and studies on research misconduct, which focuses on researchers in Malaysia, is still lacking, therefore, we decided that this was an area for investigation. This study provides qualitative results for the examined issues through series of in-depth interviews with 21 researchers and lecturers in various universities in Malaysia. The aims of this study were to investigate the researchers' opinions and perceptions regarding what they considered to be research misconduct, their experience with such misconduct, and the factors that contribute to research misconduct. Our findings suggest that the most common research misconducts that are currently being witnessed in Malaysian universities are plagiarism and authorship disputes, however, researchers seldom report incidents of research misconduct because it takes too much time, effort and work to report them, and some are just afraid of repercussions when they do report it. This suggests possible loopholes in the monitoring system, which may allow some researchers to bypass it and engage in misconduct. This study also highlights the structural and individual factors as the most influential factors when it comes to research misconduct besides organizational, situational and cultural factors. Finally, this study highlights the concerns of all participants regarding the 'publish or perish' pressure that they believe would lead to a hostile working environment, thus enhancing research misconduct, as researchers tend to think about their own performance rather than that of whole team or faculty. Consequently this weakens the interpersonal relationships among researchers, which may compromise the teaching and supervision of junior researchers and research students.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Research ethics; Research integrity; Research misconduct; Responsible research conduct

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29249021     DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9997-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  41 in total

1.  A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics.

Authors:  M W Kalichman; P J Friedman
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 6.893

2.  The role of culture in research misconduct.

Authors:  Mark S Davis
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2003 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.622

3.  Extent of Dutch psychologist's research fraud was "unprecedented".

Authors:  Jacqui Wise
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-11-07

4.  Scientific misconduct encountered by APAME journals: an online survey.

Authors:  Lai-Meng Looi; Li Xuan Wong; Cing Chai Koh
Journal:  Malays J Pathol       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 0.656

5.  A preliminary investigation of ethical problems in publication and research.

Authors:  M Holaday; T E Yost
Journal:  J Soc Behav Pers       Date:  1995

6.  Scientists behaving badly.

Authors:  Brian C Martinson; Melissa S Anderson; Raymond de Vries
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-06-09       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions.

Authors:  Nicholas H Steneck
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.525

8.  Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: a national survey.

Authors:  Erica R Pryor; Barbara Habermann; Marion E Broome
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.903

9.  Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria.

Authors:  Patrick Okonta; Theresa Rossouw
Journal:  Dev World Bioeth       Date:  2012-09-20       Impact factor: 2.294

10.  Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications.

Authors:  Andrew M Stern; Arturo Casadevall; R Grant Steen; Ferric C Fang
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 8.140

View more
  3 in total

1.  An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists About Research Integrity.

Authors:  Sarah R Davies
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 2.  What can we learn from retracted studies in the nursing field in the last 20 years? Findings from a scoping review.

Authors:  Silvania Joaquim; Jessica Longhini; Alvisa Palese
Journal:  Acta Biomed       Date:  2022-05-12

3.  RESPONSE_ABILITY A Card-Based Engagement Method to Support Researchers' Ability to Respond to Integrity Issues.

Authors:  Ulrike Felt; Florentine Frantz
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 3.777

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.