Assessing research misconduct in Iran: a perspective from Iranian medical faculty members

Abstract

Background Research misconduct is a global concern in biomedical science. There are no comprehensive data regarding the perception and situation of scientific misconduct among the Iranian medical faculty members. We conducted a nationwide survey to assess the research misconduct among the medical faculty members in Iran. Methods We used the Persian version of the research misconduct questionnaire (PRMQ) on the Google Forms platform. We sent the survey link to a systematic random sample of medical faculty members in Iran (N = 4986). Descriptive analyses were performed on the individual items of the PRMQ, with frequencies and percentages for categorical and Likert-type response items, and means and standard deviation (S.D.) for continuous variables. Chi-square analysis was conducted to test hypotheses examining differences in the frequency of responses related to factors influencing misconduct. We also defined four tenure categories (TC) based on the working years of the participants as tenured faculty members. All the analyses were performed using R 3.6.0. Results The response rate was 13.8% (692 responses). Nearly 70% of the respondents agreed that their publication output would be of higher quality if there were no publication pressure. Approximately three-quarters (N =499, 72.1%) of the respondents had been aware of some instances of research misconduct during the previous year according to their understanding of misconduct. Among the participants, 18.5% perceived the effectiveness of their associated organisation’s rules for reducing research misconduct to be high or very high. Pressure for tenure was identified as the item most frequently perceived with a strong behavioural influence on engaging in research misconduct (80.2%). Conclusions This study confirms that research misconduct needs to be actively addressed among the medical faculty members. Making policies with a focus on boosting awareness regarding the occasions of scientific misconduct and its management seems to be indispensable in the future in Iran.

Are the results of open randomised controlled trials comparing antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia biased? Exploratory meta- and subgroup analysis

“…In our experience, they are sometimes unplausibly high. This effect has been shown not only for studies from mainland China but also Iran 26 and India 6 . It does, of course, not mean that all studies emerging from such countries are methodologically poor and that all studies from more experienced countries are good 27 , but problems must be expected more frequently in the former.…”

The use of the phrase “data not shown” in dental research

“…Some reasons for the use of the phrases to refer to unpublished results can be postulated. First, pressure to publish articles and minimising the amount of work may be one reason, that is also seen to be behind other poor scientific practices [ 31 , 32 ]. In short, the results or data is not seen as worthy of publishing.…”

Aromatherapy in Nursing and Midwifery Practice: A Scoping Review of Published Studies Since 2005

“…In contrast to earlier reviews, Turkey and Iran have made significant contributions to the empirical evidence in this field. As with other bioscience areas there has been concern globally about some of the conduct of research publications from Middle Eastern countries such as Iran, with questionable ethics, falsifying results and plagiarism (Shamsoddin et al, 2021). There was no evidence of this behavior in the studies presented here; however, the author was extra vigilant and conducted more background searching of the principle authors to check their credentials.…”