Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (1):165-181 (2017)
Authors | |
Abstract |
The prevalence and characteristics of research misconduct have mainly been studied in highly developed countries. In moderately or poorly developed countries such as Croatia, data on research misconduct are scarce. The primary aim of this study was to determine the rates at which scientists report committing or observing the most serious forms of research misconduct, such as falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, and violation of authorship rules in the Croatian scientific community. Additionally, we sought to determine the degree of development and the extent of implementation of the system for defining and regulating research misconduct in a typical scientific community in Croatia. An anonymous questionnaire was distributed among 1232 Croatian scientists at the University of Rijeka in 2012/2013 and 237 returned the survey. Based on the respondents who admitted having committed research misconduct, 9 admitted to plagiarism, 22 to data falsification, 9 to data fabrication, and 60 respondents admitted to violation of authorship rules. Based on the respondents who admitted having observed research misconduct of fellow scientists, 72 observed plagiarism, 69 observed data falsification, 46 observed data fabrication, and 132 respondents admitted having observed violation of authorship rules. The results of our study indicate that the efficacy of the system for managing research misconduct in Croatia is poor. At the University of Rijeka there is no document dedicated exclusively to research integrity, describing the values that should be fostered by a scientist and clarifying the forms of research misconduct and what constitutes a questionable research practice. Scientists do not trust ethical bodies and the system for defining and regulating research misconduct; therefore the observed cases of research misconduct are rarely reported. Finally, Croatian scientists are not formally educated about responsible conduct of research at any level of their formal education. All mentioned indicate possible reasons for higher rates of research misconduct among Croatian scientists in comparison with scientists in highly developed countries.
|
Keywords | Research misconduct Research integrity Institutional policies and procedures Questionable research practices |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
ISBN(s) | |
DOI | 10.1007/s11948-016-9767-0 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Fostering Integrity in Research: Definitions, Current Knowledge, and Future Directions. [REVIEW]Nicholas H. Steneck - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):53-74.
A Meta-Analysis of Ethics Instruction Effectiveness in the Sciences.Lynn D. Devenport, Shane Connelly, Ryan P. Brown, Michael D. Mumford, Ethan P. Waples, Alison L. Antes & Stephen T. Murphy - 2009 - Ethics and Behavior 19 (5):379-402.
Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-Analysis of Surveys.Vanja Pupovac & Daniele Fanelli - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (5):1331-1352.
Relationships Between the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC) and Self-Reported Research Practices.A. Lauren Crain, Brian C. Martinson & Carol R. Thrush - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3):835-850.
Misconduct in Research: A Descriptive Survey of Attitudes, Perceptions and Associated Factors in a Developing Country.Patrick I. Okonta & Theresa Rossouw - 2014 - BMC Medical Ethics 15 (1):25.
View all 12 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Perceptions of Chinese Biomedical Researchers Towards Academic Misconduct: A Comparison Between 2015 and 2010.Qing-Jiao Liao, Yuan-Yuan Zhang, Yu-Chen Fan, Ming-Hua Zheng, Yu Bai, Guy D. Eslick, Xing-Xiang He, Shi-Bing Zhang, Harry Hua-Xiang Xia & Hua He - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (2):629-645.
Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers’ Perceptions in Spain.Ramón A. Feenstra, Emilio Delgado López-Cózar & Daniel Pallarés-Domínguez - 2021 - Science and Engineering Ethics 27 (1):1-21.
Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Yu Xie, Kai Wang & Yan Kong - 2021 - Science and Engineering Ethics 27 (4):1-28.
Perceptions of Plagiarism by Biomedical Researchers: An Online Survey in Europe and China.Kris Dierickx, Benoit Nemery & Nannan Yi - 2020 - BMC Medical Ethics 21 (1):1-16.
Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers.Matthias Kaiser, Laura Drivdal, Johs Hjellbrekke, Helene Ingierd & Ole Bjørn Rekdal - 2022 - Science and Engineering Ethics 28 (1):1-31.
View all 6 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
A Survey of Newly Appointed Consultants' Attitudes Towards Research Fraud.D. Geggie - 2001 - Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (5):344-346.
Research Misconduct Policy in Biomedicine: Beyond the Bad-Apple Approach by Barbara K. Redman.Melissa S. Anderson - 2015 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 25 (3):5-9.
Evolving Research Misconduct Policies and Their Significance for Physical Scientists.James J. Dooley & Helen M. Kerch - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):109-121.
Misconduct in Research: A Descriptive Survey of Attitudes, Perceptions and Associated Factors in a Developing Country.Patrick I. Okonta & Theresa Rossouw - 2014 - BMC Medical Ethics 15 (1):25.
Assessing the Preparedness of Research Integrity Officers (RIOs) to Appropriately Handle Possible Research Misconduct Cases.Arthur J. Bonito, Sandra L. Titus & David E. Wright - 2012 - Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (4):605-619.
Scientific Misconduct From the Perspective of Research Coordinators: A National Survey.E. R. Pryor, B. Habermann & M. E. Broome - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (6):365-369.
Prevalence of Scientific Misconduct Among a Group of Researchers in Nigeria.Theresa Rossouw Patrick Okonta - 2013 - Developing World Bioethics 13 (3):149-157.
The Swedish Research Council’s Definition of ‘Scientific Misconduct’: A Critique.Håkan Salwén - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (1):115-126.
Seven Ways to Plagiarize: Handling Real Allegations of Research Misconduct.Michael C. Loui - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (4):529-539.
Prevalence of Scientific Misconduct Among a Group of Researchers in Nigeria.Patrick Okonta & Theresa Rossouw - 2013 - Developing World Bioethics 13 (3):149-157.
The Case of Vipul Bhrigu and the Federal Definition of Research Misconduct.Lisa M. Rasmussen - 2014 - Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (2):411-421.
Changing Explanatory Frameworks in the U.S. Government’s Attempt to Define Research Misconduct.David H. Guston - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):137-154.
A Review of the Types of Scientific Misconduct in Biomedical Research. [REVIEW]Malhar N. Kumar - 2008 - Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (3):211-228.
Promoting Research Integrity in Africa: An African Voice of Concern on Research Misconduct and the Way Forward.Francis Kombe, Eucharia Nkechinyere Anunobi, Nyanyukweni Pandeni Tshifugula, Douglas Wassenaar, Dimpho Njadingwe, Salim Mwalukore, Jonathan Chinyama, Bodo Randrianasolo, Perpetua Akindeh, Priscilla S. Dlamini, Felasoa Noroseheno Ramiandrisoa & Naina Ranaivo - 2014 - Developing World Bioethics 14 (3):158-166.
The Medical Research Council’s Approach to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct.Imogen Evans - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):91-94.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2016-03-04
Total views
15 ( #701,057 of 2,519,871 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #406,012 of 2,519,871 )
2016-03-04
Total views
15 ( #701,057 of 2,519,871 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #406,012 of 2,519,871 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads