How researchers perceive research misconduct in biomedicine and how they would prevent it: A qualitative study in a small scientific community

References

• Altbach, P. 2001. Academic freedom: International realities and challenges. Higher Education 41:205–19. doi:10.1023/A:1026791518365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binder, R., A. Friedli, and E. Fuentes-Afflick. 2016. The new academic environment and faculty misconduct. Academic Medicine 91:175–79. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boeije, H. 2002. A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity 36:391-409.
   Google Scholar
• Bouter, L. M. 2015. Commentary: Perverse incentives or rotten apples? Accountability in Research 22:116–23. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.950253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Code of Ethics. 2009. Code of ethics. Croatia: University of Split School of Medicine. http://www.mefst.unist.hr/fakultet/dokumenti/86
   Google Scholar
• Cosentino, M., and M. Picozzi. 2013. Transparency for each research article. Institutions must also be accountable for research integrity. British Medical Journal 347:f5477. doi:10.1136/bmj.f5477.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Croatian Code of Ethics. 2006. Croatian Code of Ethics. Croatia: Croatian Agency for Science and Higher Education. https://www.azvo.hr/en/ethics-committee-in-science-and-higher-education (accessed October 1, 2017).
   Google Scholar
• De Vries, R., M. S. Anderson, and B. C. Martinson. 2006. Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 1:43–50. doi:10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, M. A., and S. Roy. 2017. Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science 34:51–61. doi:10.1089/ees.2016.0223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D., R. Costas, and J. P. Ioannidis 2017. Meta-assessment of bias in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114:3714–19. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1618569114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D., R. Costas, and V. Lariviere. 2015. Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS One 10:e0127556. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godecharle, S., B. Nemery, and K. Dierickx. 2013. Guidance on research integrity: No union in Europe. Lancet 381 (9872):1097–98. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60759-X.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannidis, J. P. 2014. How to make more published research true. PLoS Medicine 11:e1001747. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinert, S., and A. Marušić. 2016. F2 focus track on improving research systems: The role of countries. Research Integrity and Peer Review 1:55–56. doi:10.1186/s41073-016-0012-9.
   Google Scholar
• Komić, D., S. L. Marušić, and A. Marušić. 2015. Research integrity and research ethics in professional codes of ethics: Survey of terminology used by professional organizations across research disciplines. PLoS One 10:e0133662. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kornhaber, R. A., L. M. McLean, and R. J. Baber. 2015. Ongoing ethical issues concerning authorship in biomedical journals: An integrative review. International Journal of Nanomedicine 10:4837–46. doi:10.2147/IJN.S87585.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krstic, S. B. 2015. research integrity practices from the perspective of early-career researchers. Science and Engineering Ethics 21:1181–96. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9607-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kukolja Taradi, S., M. Taradi, T. Knežević, and Z. Đogaš. 2010. Students come to medical schools prepared to cheat: A multi-campus investigation. Journal of Medical Ethics 36:666–70. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.035410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macleod, M. R., S. Michie, I. Roberts, U. Dirnagl, I. Chalmers, J. P. Ioannidis, and P. Glasziou. 2014. Biomedical research: Increasing value, reducing waste. Lancet 383:101–04. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62329-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malički, M., V. Katavić, D. Marković, M. Marušić, and A. Marušić. 2017. Perceptions of ethical climate and research pressures in different faculties of a university: Cross-sectional study at the University of Split, Croatia. Science and Engineering Ethics, [In press] doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9987-y.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marcovitch, H., V. Barbour, C. Borrell, F. Bosch, E. Fernandez, H. Macdonald, and M. Nylenna 2010. Conflict of interest in science communication: More than a financial issue. Report from Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, April 2009. Croatian Medical Journal 51: 7–15. doi:10.3325/cmj.2010.51.7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marušić, A., and M. Marušić. 2012. Can small journals provide leadership? Lancet 379:1361–63. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61508-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marusic, A., E. Wager, A. Utrobicic, H. R. Rothstein, and D. Sambunjak. 2016. Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 4:MR000038. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000038.pub2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Puljak, L., S. L. Kojundzic, and D. Sapunar. 2008. Gender and academic medicine: A good pipeline of women graduates is not advancing. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 2:273–78. doi:10.1080/10401330802199617.
   Google Scholar
• Pupovac, V., and D. Fanelli. 2015. Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics 21:1331–52. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9600-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmucker, C., L. K. Schell, S. Portalupi, P. Oeller, L. Cabrera, D. Bassler, and J. J. Meerpohl. 2014. Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries. PLoS One 9:e114023. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinatra, R., D. Wang, P. Deville, C. Song, and A. L. Barabasi. 2016. Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science 354. doi:10.1126/science.aaf5239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tijdink, J. K., L. M. Bouter, C. L. Veldkamp, P. M. van de Ven, J. M. Wicherts, and Y. M. Smulders. 2016. Personality traits are associated with research misbehavior in Dutch scientists: A cross-sectional study. PLoS One 11:e0163251. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vidak, M., R. Tokalic, M. Marusic, L. Puljak, and D. Sapunar 2017. Improving completion rates of students in biomedical PhD programs: An interventional study. BMC Medical Education 17: 144. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-0985-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wager, E., and P. Williams. 2011. Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. Journal of Medical Ethics 37:567-70. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040964.
   Google Scholar
• Wager, E., and S. Kleinert. 2012. Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: Guidance from the committee on publication ethics. Acta Informatica Medica 20:136–40. doi:10.5455/aim.2012.20.136-140.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson, K., A. Schreier, A. Griffin, and D. Resnik. 2007. Research records and the resolution of misconduct allegations at research universities. Accountability in Research 14:57–71. doi:10.1080/08989620601126017.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wong, S. S., S. W. Lim, and K. M. Quinlan. 2016. Integrity in and beyond contemporary higher education: What does it mean to university students? Frontiers in Psychology 7:1094. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar