Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ali, W. Z. W., Ismail, H., & Tan, T. C. (2012). Plagiarism: To what extent it is understood? Procedia-Social and Behavioural Science, 59, 604–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amin, L., Zainal, S. Z., Hassan, Z., & Haji Ibrahim, M. (2012). Factor contributing to research misconduct. The Social Sciences, 7(2), 283–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, M. S., et al. (2013). Research integrity and misconduct in the academic profession. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 28). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angier, N. (24th April 1990). Cultures in conflict: M.D.’s and Ph.D.’s. The New York Times.

  • Arda, B. (2012). Publication ethics from the perspective of Ph.D. students of health sciences: A limited experience. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18, 213–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtiyari, K., Salehi, H., Embi, M. A., et al. (2014). Ethical and unethical method of plagiarism prevention in academic writing. International Education Studies, 7(7), 52–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, P. (2006). Where are they now? Nature Medicine, 12(5), 492–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biagioli, M., Crane, J., Derish, P., Gruber, M., Rennie, D. & Horton, R. (1999). CSE task force on authorship draft white paper. Available at http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/services_atfwhitepaper.Shtml.

  • Broome, M. E., et al. (2005). The scientific misconduct questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R): Validation and psychometric testing. Accountability in Research, 12(4), 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. (2004). International issues in deterring, detecting and dealing with student plagiarism. Full report. Joint Information Systems Committee.

  • Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2012). Reforming science: Methodological and cultural reforms. Infection and Immunity, 80, 891–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chun, H. Q., Stewart, N., & Wai, C. L. (2012). Attitudes of business students’ toward plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10(3), 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton, L. D. (2005a). Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutation Research, 589, 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton, L. D. (2005b). Scientific authorship. Part 2: History, recurring issues, practices and guidelines. Mutation Research, 589, 31–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. S. (2003). The role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 11, 189–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. S., Morris, M. R., & Diaz, S. R. (2007). Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: Evidence from ORI case files. Science Engineering Ethics, 13, 395–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. S., & Riske, M. L. (2002). Preventing scientific misconduct: Insights from convicted offenders. In N. H. Steneck & M. D. Scheetz (Eds.), Investigating research integrity: First ORI research conference on research integrity. Rockville: Office of Research Integrity.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martison, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehaviour: Scientists talk about ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devlin, M., & Gray, K. (2007). In their own words: A qualitative study of the reasons Australian university students plagiarise. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(2), 181–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhand, R. (2002). Does research misconduct extend beyond biomedicine? The COPE report 2002. Available at http://publicationethics.org/static/2002/2002pdf4.pdf.

  • Dominus, S. (20th April 2011). The crash and burn of an autism guru. The New York Times.

  • Dresser, R. (1993). Defining scientific misconduct: The relevance of mental state. Journal of American Medical Association, 269, 985–987.

    Google Scholar 

  • DuBios, J. M., Anderson, E. E., Chibnall, J., Carroll, K., et al. (2013). Understanding research misconduct: A comparative analysis of 120 cases of professional wrongdoing. Accountability in Research, 20(5–6), 320–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R. J. (1993). Six authors in search of a citation: Villains or victims of the Vancouver convention? British Medical Journal, 306, 765–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4, e5738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischbach, R. L., & Gilbert, D. C. (1995). The ombudsman for research practice: A proposal for a new position and an invitation to comment. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1, 389–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, W., Lidz, C. W., et al. (2005). Authors’ reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 26(2), 244–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geggie, D. (2001). A survey of newly appointed consultants’ attitudes toward research fraud. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27, 344–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, J. L. (1992). Scientific data audit—A key management tool. Accountability in Research, 2(3), 153–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, B. C., & Hansen, K. D. (1995). Academic and scientific misconduct: Issues for nursing educators. Journal of Professional Nursing, 11, 31–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holaday, M., & Yost, T. E. (1995). A preliminary investigation of ethical problems in publication and research. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 10(2), 281–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. M. (2000). Sexuality, textuality: The cultural work of plagiarism. College English, 62(4), 473–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, J. M. C., & Mc-Cabe, D. L. (2006). Understanding academic misconduct. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 36(1), 49–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, G., & Hals, A. (1995). Medical investigators’ views about ethics and fraud in medical research. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians, London, 29(5), 405–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, T. (1998). Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: Scientific misconduct or necessity? Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(2), 135–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jha, A. (2012). False positive: Fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research. The Guardian. Available at http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice.

  • Jones, R. (2002). Research misconduct. Family Practise, 19, 123–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, S. R., & Gray, P. W. (2012). Research integrity in greater China: Surveying regulations, perceptions and knowledge of research integrity from a Hong Kong perspective. Developing World Bioethics, 13(3), 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, A., Klass, N. E., Sewankambo, N. K., et al. (2014). Evaluating international research ethics capacity development: An empirical approach. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(2), 41–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kakuk, P. (2009). The legacy of the Hwang case: Research misconduct in biosciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(4), 545–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalichman, M. W., & Friedman, P. J. (1992). A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine, 67, 769–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karim, N. S. A., Zamzuri, N. H. A., & Nor, Y. M. (2009). Exploring the relationship between internet ethics in university students and the big five model of personality. Computers and Education, 53(1), 86–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., & Park, K. (2013). Ethical modernization: Research misconduct and research ethics reforms in Korea following the Hwang affair. Science Engineering Ethics, 19, 355–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornfeld, D. S. (2012). Research misconduct: The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87(7), 877–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, A. (2011). Despite occasional scandals, science can police itself. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(16), A72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krstic, S. B. (2014). Research integrity practices from the perspective of early career researchers. Science Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9607-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langlais, P. (2006). Ethics for the next generation. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 22, B11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. A. (2001). Rank injustice: The misallocation of credit is endemic in science. Nature, 415, 819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lei, J., & Hu, G. (2014). Chinese university EFL teachers’ perceptions of plagiarism. Higher Education, 70(3), 551–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Looi, L. M., Wong, L. X., & Koh, C. C. (2015). Scientific misconduct encountered by APAME journals: An online survey. Malaysian Journal of Pathology, 37(3), 213–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis, K. S., Anderson, M. S., & Rosenberg, L. (1995). Academic misconduct and values: The department’s influence. Review Higher Education, 8, 393–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marris, E. (2006). Doctor admits Lancet study is fiction. Nature, 439, 248–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martison, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNichols, C. W., & Zimmerer, T. W. (1985). Situational ethics: An empirical study of differentiators of student attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(3), 175–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, R. S. (1990). Disreputable science: Definition and detection. Journal of Advance Nursing, 15, 911–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., & Helton, W. B. (2002). Organizational influence on scientific integrity. In Proceedings of the 1st ORI research conference on research integrity in Bethesda (pp. 73–90). Maryland, November 19–20 2000.

  • Nilstun, T., Lofmark, R., & Lundqvist, A. (2010). Scientific dishonesty-questionnaire to doctoral students in Sweden. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(5), 315–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President. Federal Policy on Research Misconduct. Federal Register 6 December, 2000 (pp. 76260–76264). http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=00-30852-filed.

  • Okonta, P., & Rossouw, T. (2013). Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria. Developing World Bioethics, 13(3), 149–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwude, J. L., Staines, A., & Lilford, L. J. (1993). Multiple author trend worst in medicine. British Medical Journal, 306(6888), 1345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oransky, I. & Marcus, A. (2014). Retraction watch. Available at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com.

  • Park, R. L. (2008). Fraud in science. Social Research, 75(4), 1135–1150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, A. R. (1998). Anonymity and pseudonymity in whistle blowing to the US Office of Research Integrity. Academic Medicine, 73, 267–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryor, E. R., Habermann, B., & Broome, M. E. (2007). Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: A national survey. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(6), 365–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, S. C., & Crosby, J. R. (2001). Are ‘tomorrow’s doctors’ honest? Questionnaire study exploring medical students’ attitudes and reported behaviour on academic misconduct. British Medical Journal, 9, 67–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B. (2010). What is ethics in research and why is it important? National Institute of Environmental and Health Science.

  • Schulz, W. G. (2008). A massive case of fraud. Chemical and Engineering News, 86(7), 37–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible conduct of research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, L. (2006). Cultural backgrounds and textual appropriation. Language Awareness Journal, 15(4), 264–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2006). Research misconduct: The poisoning of the well. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 232–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M., Ghazali, N., & Minhad, S. F. N. (2007). Attitudes towards plagiarism among undergraduate accounting students: Malaysian evidence. Asian Review of Accounting, 15(2), 122–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song-Turner, H. (2008). Plagiarism: Academic dishonesty or blind spot of multicultural education? Australian Universities’ Review, 50(2), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sowden, C. (2005). Plagiarism and the culture of multilingual students in higher education abroad. ELT Journal, 59(3), 226–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS ONE, 8, e68397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, A. M., Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., & Fang, F. C. (2014). Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. eLifesciences.org.

  • The Star Online. (17th June 2016). Four researchers falsified science data, says UM. Available at http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/06/17/four-researchers-falsified-science-data-says-um/.

  • Tindemans, P. (2007). Report of organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD) global science forum. In Proceedings of the best practices for ensuring scientific integrity and preventing misconduct. Tokyo, February 22–23.

  • Wan, R., Md Nordin, S., Halib, M., & Ghazali, Z. (2011). Plagiarism among undergraduate students in an engineering-based university: An exploratory analysis. European Journal of Social Sciences, 25(4), 537–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wise, J. (2011). Extent of Dutch psychologist’s research fraud was ‘unprecedented’. British Medical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yusof, D. S. M., & Masrom, U. K. (2012). Malaysia students’ understanding of plagiarism. The international journal-language society and culture. Available at www.educ.utas.edu.au/users/tle/JOURNAL/.

  • Zobel, J., & Hamilton, M. (2002). Managing student plagiarism in large academic departments. Australian Universities’ Review, 45(2), 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our participants for their valuable opinions and views on the topic. We are also grateful to Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia where the study was based and Ministry of Higher Education (MY) for funding this study (FRGS/1/2017/SSI12/UKM/01/1). We also would like to thank all authors for their contributions to the development of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pusat Citra UKM, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

    Angelina P. Olesen, Latifah Amin & Zurina Mahadi

Authors
  1. Angelina P. Olesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Latifah Amin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zurina Mahadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Latifah Amin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Olesen, A.P., Amin, L. & Mahadi, Z. In Their Own Words: Research Misconduct from the Perspective of Researchers in Malaysian Universities. Sci Eng Ethics 24, 1755–1776 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9997-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9997-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation