Questionable research practices of medical and dental faculty in Pakistan - a confession.
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Jan 2024
31 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
26
03
2023
accepted:
18
01
2024
medline:
1
2
2024
pubmed:
1
2
2024
entrez:
31
1
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Intellectual honesty and integrity are the cornerstones of conducting any form of research. Over the last few years, scholars have shown great concerns over questionable research practices (QRPs) in academia. This study aims to investigate the questionable research practices amongst faculty members of medical and dental colleges in Pakistan. A descriptive multi-institutional online survey was conducted from June-August 2022. Based on previous studies assessing research misconduct, 43 questionable research practices in four domains: Data collection & storage, Data analysis, Study reporting and Collaboration & authorship were identified and investigated. Descriptive (Frequencies, Percentages, Mean, SD) and Inferential (chi square) statistics were calculated. A total of 654 faculty members responded. Every respondent reported committing at least one QRP in their career. The most common QRPs included deliberately failing to mention funding, publishing program evaluation data not meant for research purposes or approved by an ethical body, inappropriately storing identifiable information and non-disclosure of any conflicts. There was significant association of age, gender and academic rank with QRPs in 'Data collection and storage' and 'Data Analysis' domains. Medical and dental faculty members participating in this study are involved in a range of questionable research practices (QRPs) in Pakistan. Their confession might have contributed to the faculty developing self-awareness and reinforcing academic integrity. There is a need for reviewing policies and practices to improve research culture. Future research should explore the factors resulting in such practices.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38297258
doi: 10.1186/s12910-024-01004-4
pii: 10.1186/s12910-024-01004-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
11Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Gostin LO, Levit LA, Nass SJ. Beyond the HIPAA privacy rule: enhancing privacy, improving health through research. National Academies Press; 2009.
Dobrow MJ, Miller FA, Frank C. Brown ADJHrp, systems. Understanding relevance of health research. Considerations in the Context of Research Impact Assessment. 2017;15(1):1–9.
Heflin MT, DeMeo S, Nagler A, Hockenberry MJ. Health Professions Education Research and the Institutional Review Board. Nurse Educ. 2016;41(2):55–9.
doi: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000230
Steneck NHJS. ethics e. Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. 2006;12(1):53–74.
Zikria BA. Adab-Al-Tabib. The J IMA. 1981;13:79–80.
Rogers B. The value of peer review. Volume 103. Royal College of Surgeons; 2021. pp. 1–1.
Goodyear MD, Krleza-Jeric K, Lemmens T. The declaration of Helsinki. Volume 335. British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2007. pp. 624–5.
Culliton BJ. National Research Act: restores training, bans fetal research. Science. 1974;185(4149):426–7.
doi: 10.1126/science.185.4149.426
Merkatz RB, Junod SW. Historical background of changes in FDA policy on the study and evaluation of drugs in women. Acad Med. 1994;69(9):703–7.
doi: 10.1097/00001888-199409000-00004
Bates T, Anić A, Marušić M, Marušić A. Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions: comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms. JAMA. 2004;292(1):86–8.
doi: 10.1001/jama.292.1.86
Martinson BC, Anderson MS, De Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature. 2005;435(7043):737–8.
doi: 10.1038/435737a
Brice J, Bligh J, Bordage G, et al. Publishing ethics in medical education journals. Acad Medicine: J Association Am Med Colleges. 2009;84(10 Suppl):132–4.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b36f69
Eva KW. How would you like your salami? A guide to slicing. Med Educ. 2017;51(5):456–7.
doi: 10.1111/medu.13285
ten Cate O. Why the ethics of medical education research differs from that of medical research. Med Educ. 2009;43(7):608–10.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03385.x
Luther F. Publishing without ethical approval. J Orthodont. 2005;32(1):2–2.
doi: 10.1179/146531205225020715
Hally E, Walsh K. Research ethics and medical education. Med Teach. 2016;38(1):105–6.
doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.956068
Banks GC, Rogelberg SG, Woznyj HM, Landis RS, Rupp DE. Editorial: evidence on Questionable Research practices: the Good, the bad, and the Ugly. J Bus Psychol. 2016;31(3):323–38.
doi: 10.1007/s10869-016-9456-7
Isbell DR, Brown D, Chen M, et al. Misconduct and questionable research practices: the ethics of quantitative data handling and reporting in applied linguistics. Mod Lang J. 2022;106(1):172–95.
doi: 10.1111/modl.12760
Butler N, Delaney H, Spoelstra S. The gray zone: questionable research practices in the business school. Acad Manage Learn Educ. 2017;16(1):94–109.
doi: 10.5465/amle.2015.0201
Kepes S, Keener SK, McDaniel MA, Hartman NS. Questionable research practices among researchers in the most research-productive management programs. J Organizational Behav. 2022;43(7):1190–208.
doi: 10.1002/job.2623
Sacco DF, Brown M. Assessing the efficacy of a training intervention to reduce acceptance of questionable research practices in psychology graduate students. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2019;14(3):209–18.
doi: 10.1177/1556264619840525
Matthes J, Marquart F, Naderer B, Arendt F, Schmuck D, Adam K. Questionable research practices in experimental communication research: a systematic analysis from 1980 to 2013. Communication Methods and Measures. 2015;9(4):193–207.
doi: 10.1080/19312458.2015.1096334
Artino ARJ, Driessen EW, Maggio LA. Ethical shades of Gray: International Frequency of Scientific Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices in Health professions Education. Acad Med. 2019;94(1):76–84.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002412
Artino AR Jr, Driessen EW, Maggio LAJAM. Ethical shades of gray: international frequency of scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education. 2019;94(1):76–84.
Maggio LA, Artino AR Jr, Picho K, Driessen EWJAM. Are you sure you want to do that? Fostering the responsible conduct of medical education research. 2018;93(4):544–9.
John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec DJP. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. 2012;23(5):524–32.
Jawad FJJ. Medical research and science culture in Pakistan. 2015;65:1–2.
Ghaffar A, Zaidi S, Qureshi H, Hafeez AJTL. Med Educ Res Pakistan. 2013;381(9885):2234–6.
Bunz U. Publish or perish: a limited author analysis of ICA and NCA journals. J Communication. 2006;55(4):703–20.
doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03018.x
Bauldry S. Trends in the Research Productivity of newly hired Assistant professors at Research Departments from 2007 to 2012. Am Sociologist. 2013;44(3):282–91.
doi: 10.1007/s12108-013-9187-4
Belcher WL. Reflections on ten years of teaching writing for publication to graduate students and junior faculty. J Sch Publishing. 2009;40(2):184–200.
doi: 10.3138/jsp.40.2.184
Aithal P, Aithal S. Analysis of the Indian National Education Policy 2020 towards achieving its objectives. Int J Manage Technol Social Sci (IJMTS). 2020;5(2):19–41.
Diamond SJ, Thomas CRJ, Desai S, et al. Gender Differences in Publication Productivity, Academic Rank, and Career Duration among U.S. Academic Gastroenterology Faculty. Acad Med. 2016;91(8):1158–63.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001219
Hegmann TE. Benchmarking Scholarship activities of Physician Assistant Faculty. J Physician Assistant Educ. 2008;19(3):13–7.
doi: 10.1097/01367895-200819030-00004
Garino A, Wang L, Min EA. Publish or perish: a cross-sectional, bibliometric analysis of Physician Assistant Faculty publications. J Physician Assistant Educ. 2022;33(2):87–93.
doi: 10.1097/JPA.0000000000000417
Rai A, Kumar A, Abraham L, Chandra A, Kaur M, Hasan S. Research and publishing practices, attitudes, and barriers among dental faculty: results of a survey study of 200 teachers across India. J Educ Ethics Dentistry. 2016;6(1):34.
doi: 10.4103/jeed.jeed_14_17
Taquette SR, Minayo MC. An analysis of articles on qualitative studies conducted by doctors published in scientific journals in Brazil between 2004 and 2013. Physis: Revista De Saúde Coletiva. 2017;27:357–74.
doi: 10.1590/s0103-73312017000200010
Damasceno RF, Sabino EC, Ferreira AM, et al. Challenges in the care of patients with Chagas disease in the Brazilian public health system: a qualitative study with primary health care doctors. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2020;14(11):e0008782.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008782
Simkhada P, van Teijlingen E, Devkota B, Pathak S, Sathian B. Accessing research literature: a mixed-method study of academics in higher Education Institutions in Nepal. Nepal J Epidemiol. 2014;4(4):405–14.
doi: 10.3126/nje.v4i4.11375
Rabelo ALA, Farias JEM, Sarmet MM, et al. Questionable research practices among Brazilian psychological researchers: results from a replication study and an international comparison. Int J Psychol. 2020;55(4):674–83.
doi: 10.1002/ijop.12632
Agnoli F, Wicherts JM, Veldkamp CLS, Albiero P, Cubelli R. Questionable research practices among Italian research psychologists. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(3):e0172792.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172792
John LK, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol Sci. 2012;23(5):524–32.
doi: 10.1177/0956797611430953
Aultman JM. Abuses and apologies: Irresponsible Conduct of Human Subjects Research in Latin America. J Law Med Ethics. 2013;41(1):353–68.
doi: 10.1111/jlme.12025
Nowak KS, Bankert EA, Nelson RM. Reforming the oversight of multi-site clinical research: a review of two possible solutions. Account Res. 2006;13(1):11–24.
doi: 10.1080/08989620600588845
Lorell BH, Mikita JS, Anderson A, Hallinan ZP, Forrest A. Informed consent in clinical research: Consensus recommendations for reform identified by an expert interview panel. Clin Trails. 2015;12(6):692–5.
doi: 10.1177/1740774515594362
Carpenter D. Institutional review boards, regulatory incentives, and some modest proposals for reform. Nw UL Rev. 2007;101:687.
Ghayur MN, Ghayur A, Janssen LJ. State of clinical research ethics in Pakistan. Nat Med. 2007;13(9):1011–1.
doi: 10.1038/nm0907-1011
Uzwyshyn R. Research data repositories: the what, when, why and how. 2016.
Austin CC, Brown S, Fong N, Humphrey C, Leahey A, Webster P. Research data repositories: review of current features, gap analysis, and recommendations for minimum requirements. IASSIST Q. 2016;39(4):24–4.
doi: 10.29173/iq904
Elsayed AM, Saleh EI. Research data management and sharing among researchers in arab universities: an exploratory study. IFLA J. 2018;44(4):281–99.
doi: 10.1177/0340035218785196
Iqbal MA, Ashfaq M, Riaz B, Khan DH, Ahmed N, Shahid S. Impact of abolishment of PMDC on Basic Medical & Dental Sciences Faculty Career Path of a Federally Chartered Public Sector Medical University-A Questionnaire Validation Study: PMDC abolishment & Faculty career. Pakistan BioMedical Journal 2021;4(1).
Aslam F, Qayyum M, Mahmud H, Qasim R, Haque I. Attitudes and practices of postgraduate medical trainees towards research–a snapshot from Faisalabad. J Pakistan Med Association. 2004;54(10):534.
Beshyah S, Ibrahim W, Aburawi E, Elkhammas E. The rules and realities of authorship in biomedical journals: a cautionary tale for aspiring researchers. Ibnosina J Med Biomedical Sci. 2018;10(05):149–57.
doi: 10.4103/ijmbs.ijmbs_62_18