Table 2 Frequency of questionable research practices
From: Questionable research practices of medical and dental faculty in Pakistan – a confession
Questionable (Research Practices) | No. (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
More than once | Once | Never | |||||
Data collection and storage | 1. Conducted a human-subjects research study without ethics approval (i.e., without Institutional Review Board [IRB] approval) | 396 | 61% | 198 | 30% | 60 | 9% |
2. Circumvented one or more aspects of human-subjects ethics rules (i.e., IRB rules) | 507 | 78% | 66 | 10% | 81 | 12% | |
3. Collected course or curriculum data under the guise of “program evaluation” without human subjects’ ethics (IRB) approval with the ultimate intent of using the data for research purposes | 582 | 89% | 33 | 5% | 39 | 6% | |
4. Inappropriately stored sensitive research data (e.g., data that contains personally identifiable information) | 576 | 88% | 63 | 10% | 15 | 2% | |
5. Inappropriately emailed sensitive research data (e.g., data that contain personally identifiable information) | 456 | 70% | 123 | 19% | 75 | 11% | |
6. Stopped collecting data earlier than planned because the results already reached statistical significance, without formal stopping rules | 306 | 47% | 240 | 37% | 108 | 17% | |
7. Fabricated data | 447 | 68% | 156 | 24% | 51 | 8% | |
8. Pressured a student or other subordinate to be a study participant in your research | 507 | 78% | 66 | 10% | 81 | 12% | |
9. Used students or residents as research subjects without informing the overseeing dean, program director, or other pertinent official | 467 | 71.4 | 125 | 19.1 | 62 | 9.4 | |
Data analysis | 10. Deleted data before performing data analysis without disclosure | 24 | 4% | 111 | 17% | 519 | 79% |
11. Ignored a colleague’s use of flawed data | 105 | 16% | 114 | 17% | 435 | 67% | |
12. Ignored a colleague’s questionable interpretation of data | 108 | 17% | 105 | 16% | 441 | 67% | |
13. Reported a downwardly rounded p-value (e.g., reporting that a p-value of 0.054 is less than 0.05) | 162 | 25% | 141 | 22% | 351 | 54% | |
14. Misrepresented a participant’s words or writings | 51 | 8% | 84 | 13% | 519 | 79% | |
15. Decided whether to exclude non-outlier data after looking at the impact of doing so on the results | 63 | 10% | 69 | 11% | 522 | 80% | |
16. In a qualitative study, failed to report disconfirming examples or cases that weaken your conclusions | 550 | 84% | 91 | 14% | 13 | 1.9% | |
17. Collected more data after seeing that the results were almost statistically significant | 459 | 70% | 105 | 16% | 87 | 13% | |
18. To confirm a hypothesis, selectively deleted or changed data after performing data analysis | 48 | 7% | 63 | 10% | 543 | 83% | |
19. Reported an unexpected finding as having been hypothesized from the start | 81 | 12% | 102 | 16% | 471 | 72% | |
20. Concealed results that contradicted your previous findings or convictions | 36 | 6% | 78 | 12% | 540 | 83% | |
21. Claimed you used a particular qualitative research approach appropriately (e.g., grounded theory) when you knowingly did not | 549 | 84% | 66 | 10% | 39 | 6% | |
22. Claimed you used a particular qualitative research technique appropriately (e.g., saturation, triangulation) when you knowingly did not | 536 | 82% | 104 | 16% | 14 | 2% | |
Study reporting | 23. Spread study results over more papers than is appropriate (“salami slicing”) | 555 | 85% | 60 | 9% | 39 | 6% |
24. Deliberately failed to mention important limitations of a study in the published paper | 531 | 81% | 69 | 11% | 54 | 8% | |
25. Deliberately failed to mention an organization that funded your research in the published paper | 594 | 91% | 39 | 6% | 21 | 3% | |
26. Inappropriately modified the results of a study due to pressure from a research adviser or other collaborator | 18 | 3% | 51 | 8% | 585 | 89% | |
27. Inappropriately modified the results of a study due to pressure from a funding agency | 9 | 1% | 24 | 4% | 621 | 95% | |
28. Failed to disclose relevant financial or intellectual conflicts of interest | 573 | 88% | 48 | 7% | 33 | 5% | |
29. Used someone else’s ideas without their permission or proper citation | 534 | 82% | 84 | 13% | 36 | 6% | |
30. Used sections of text from another author’s copyrighted material without permission or proper citation | 528 | 81% | 84 | 13% | 42 | 6% | |
31. Used sections of text from your own publications without proper citation (“self-plagiarism”) | 477 | 73% | 126 | 19% | 51 | 8% | |
32. Selectively cited certain papers just to please editors or reviewers | 468 | 72% | 117 | 18% | 69 | 11% | |
33. Cited articles and or materials that you have not read | 312 | 48% | 114 | 17% | 228 | 35% | |
34. Selectively cited your own work just to improve your citation metrics | 420 | 64% | 132 | 20% | 102 | 16% | |
35. Reused previously published data without disclosure (“duplicate publication”) | 27 | 4.1% | 228 | 34.8% | 399 | 61% | |
36. Used confidential information obtained as a reviewer or editor for your own research or publications | 22 | 3.3% | 248 | 38% | 384 | 5.8% | |
Collaboration and authorship | 37. Refused to share data with legitimate colleagues | 385 | 59% | 45 | 7% | 224 | 34% |
38. Added one or more authors to a paper who did not qualify for authorship (“honorary authorship”) | 523 | 80% | 106 | 16% | 25 | 3.8% | |
39. Accepted authorship for which you did not qualify (“honorary authorship”) | 550 | 84% | 98 | 15% | 6 | 0.9% | |
40. Demanded authorship for which you did not qualify (“honorary authorship”) | 324 | 50% | 210 | 32% | 120 | 18% | |
41. Omitted a contributor who deserved authorship | 561 | 86% | 75 | 11% | 18 | 3% | |
42. Submitted (or re-submitted) a manuscript or grant application without consent from one or more of the authors | 570 | 87% | 60 | 9% | 24 | 4% | |
43. Submitted the same manuscript to multiple journals at once (“duplicate” or “double submission”) | 546 | 83% | 102 | 16% | 6 | 1% | |