Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 165–181 | Cite as

Research Misconduct in the Croatian Scientific Community: A Survey Assessing the Forms and Characteristics of Research Misconduct

  • Vanja Pupovac
  • Snježana Prijić-Samaržija
  • Mladen Petrovečki
Original Paper

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 (19.2 %) returned the survey. Based on the respondents who admitted having committed research misconduct, 9 (3.8 %) admitted to plagiarism, 22 (9.3 %) to data falsification, 9 (3.8 %) to data fabrication, and 60 (25.3 %) respondents admitted to violation of authorship rules. Based on the respondents who admitted having observed research misconduct of fellow scientists, 72 (30.4 %) observed plagiarism, 69 (29.1 %) observed data falsification, 46 (19.4 %) observed data fabrication, and 132 (55.7 %) 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 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Prof. Elvio Baccarini, president of the Council of Honor of the University of Rijeka, on his constructive advice for designing the survey questionnaire and Dr. Aleksandra Mišak and Elizabeth Hughes Komljen for excellent language consultations.

Funding

The study is part of two research projects: “Acceptance and awareness of the principles of research ethics of University of Rijeka scientists” (Project Number: 3%-12-33) funded by the University of Rijeka and “Attitude toward scientific plagiarism, its prevalence and characteristics” (Project Number: 13.06.1.2.29) funded by the University of Rijeka Foundation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adeleye, O. A., & Adebamowo, C. A. (2012). Factors associated with research wrongdoing in Nigeria. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(5), 15–24. doi: 10.1525/jer.2012.7.5.15.Factors.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ana, J., Koehlmoos, T., Smith, R., & Yan, L. L. (2013). Research misconduct in low- and middle-income countries. PLoS Medicine, 10(3), 1–6. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists??? Misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 853–860. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antes, A., Murphy, S., Waples, E., Mumford, M., Brown, R., Connelley, S., & Devenport, L. (2009). A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences Alison. Ethics and Behavior, 19(5), 379–402. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.02.002.A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baždarić, K., Bilić-Zulle, L., Brumini, G., & Petrovečki, M. (2012). Prevalence of plagiarism in recent submissions to the croatian medical journal. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 223–239. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9347-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bedeian, A., Taylor, S., & Miller, A. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(4), 715–725. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2010.56659889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bilic-Zulle, L., Azman, J., Frkovic, V., & Petrovecki, M. (2008). Is there an effective approach to deterring students from plagiarizing? Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(1), 139–147. doi: 10.1007/s11948-007-9037-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bilić-Zulle, L., Frković, V., Turk, T., Azman, J., & Petrovecki, M. (2005). Prevalence of plagiarism among medical students. Croatian Medical Journal, 46(1), 126–131.Google Scholar
  9. Chalmers, I. (2006). Role of systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism: case of Asim Kurjak. BMJ, 333(September), 594–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crain, L. A., Martinson, B. C., & Thrush, C. R. (2013). Relationships between the survey of organizational research climate (SORC) and self-reported research practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(3), 835–850. doi: 10.1007/s11948-012-9409-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dhingra, D., & Mishra, D. (2014). Publication misconduct among medical professionals in India. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 23(2), 293–294. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.100447.Google Scholar
  12. Eastwood, S., Derish, P., Leash, E., & Ordway, S. (1996). Ethical issues in biomedical research: perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(1), 89–114. doi: 10.1007/bf02639320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ESF, & ALLEA. (2011). The European code of conduct for research integrity, 1–20. doi: 10.1037/e648332011-002.
  14. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4(5), e5738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2013). Integrity training: Conflicting Practices. Sciences, 340(June), 1403–1404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Honig, B., & Bedi, A. (2012). The fox in the hen house: A critical examination of plagiarism among members of the academy of management. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(1), 101–123. doi: 10.5465/amle.2010.0084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hrabak, M., Vujaklija, A., Vodopivec, I., Hren, D., Marušić, M., & Marušić, A. (2004). Academic misconduct among medical students in a post-communist country. Medical Education, 38(3), 276–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. doi: 10.1177/0956797611430953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalichman, M. (2014). A modest proposal to move RCR education out of the classroom and into research. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 15(2), 93–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kattenbraker, M. (2007). Health education research and publication: Ethical considerations and the response of health educators. Carbondale: Graduate School Southern Illinois University Carbondale.Google Scholar
  21. Kleinert, S., & Wager, E. (2010). Responsible research publication: international standards for authors A position statement. 2nd world conference on research integrity, Singapore, July 2224, 2010. http://publicationethics.org/files/Internationalstandards_authors_forwebsite_11_Nov_2011_0.pdf. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
  22. Kukolja Taradi, S., Taradi, M., & Dogas, Z. (2012). Croatian medical students see academic dishonesty as an acceptable behaviour: a cross-sectional multicampus study. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(6), 376–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kukolja Taradi, S., Taradi, M., & Knezevic, T. (2010). Students come to medical schools prepared to cheat: a multi-campus investigation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(11), 666–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Magnus, J. R., Polterovich, V. M., Danilov, D. L., & Savvateev, A. V. (2002). Tolerance of Cheating: An analysis across countries. The Journal of Economic Education, 33(2), 125–135. doi: 10.1080/00220480209596462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martinson, B., Anderson, M., Crain, A., & De Vries, R. (2006). Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of empirical research on human research ethics, 1(1), 51–66. doi: 10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marušić, A., Bošnjak, L., & Jerončić, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS One, 6(9), e23477. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nacionalno vijeće za znanost, (National Council for Science). (2013). Pravilnik o uvjetima za izbor u znanstvena zvanja (Ordinance on Election into Scientific Titles) Narodne novine.Google Scholar
  28. Okonta, P. I., & Rossouw, T. (2014). Misconduct in research: a descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country. BMC Medical Ethics, 15(1), 25. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Petrovecki, M., & Scheetz, M. (2001). Croatian Medical Journal introduces culture, control, and the study of research integrity. Croatian Medical Journal, 42(1), 7–13.Google Scholar
  30. Puljak, L. (2007). Croatia founded a national body for ethics in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(2), 191–193. http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=UA&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=5&SID=V2s1Lh3tIewOnt2cQDB&page=1&doc=6. Accessed 18 Dec 2015.
  31. Pupovac, V., Bilic-Zulle, L., Mavrinac, M., & Petrovecki, M. (2010). Attitudes toward plagiarism among pharmacy and medical biochemistry students—Cross-sectional survey study. Biochemia Medica, 20(3), 279–281.Google Scholar
  32. Pupovac, V., Bilic-Zulle, L., & Petrovecki, M. (2008). On academic plagiarism in Europe: An analytical approach based on four studies. DIGITHUM: The Humanities in the Dital Era, (10), 13–18. http://www.uoc.edu/digithum/10/dt/eng/pupovac_bilic-zulle_petrovecki.pdf.
  33. Pupovac, V., & Fanelli, D. (2015). Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(5), 1331–1352. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9600-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ranstam, J., Buyse, M., George, S. L., Evans, S., Geller, N. L., Scherrer, B., et al. (2000). Fraud in medical research: an international survey of biostatisticians. ISCB Subcommittee on Fraud. Controlled Clinical Trials, 21(2000), 415–427. doi: 10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00069-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Resnik, D. B., & Master, Z. (2013). Policies and initiatives aimed at addressing research misconduct in high-income countries. PLoS Medicine, 10(3), 1–4. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Science Europe Working Group on Research Integrity. (2015). Seven reasons to care about integrity in research.Google Scholar
  37. Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74. doi: 10.1007/pl00022268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stojanovski, J. (2015). Do Croatian open access journals support ethical research? Content analysis of instructions to authors. Biochemia Medica, 25(1), 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sullivan, S., Aalborg, A., Basagoitia, A., Cortes, J., Lanza, O., & Schwind, J. (2014). Exploring perceptions and experiences of Bolivian health researchers with research ethics. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10(2), 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Swazey, J. P., Anderson, M. S., & Seashore, L. K. (1993). Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist, 81, 542–543.Google Scholar
  41. Titus, S. L., Wells, J. A., & Rhoades, L. J. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453(June), 980–982. doi: 10.1038/453980a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. World Conference on Research Integrity. (2010). Singapore statement on research integrity. http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2016.
  43. World Conference on Research Integrity. (2013). Montreal statement on research integrity in cross-boundary research collaborations. http://www.researchintegrity.org/Statements/MontrealStatementEnglish.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2016.
  44. Zwirn Periš, Ž., & Avilov, M. (2013). Nastavnici i suradnici u nastavi na visokim učilištima u ak. g. 2012./2013. - priopćenje [Teaching staff at institutions of higher education 2012/2013 academic year - first relase]. Croatian Bureau of Statiatics. http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv_Eng/publication/2013/08-01-01_01_2013.htm. Accessed 25 Nov 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vanja Pupovac
    • 1
  • Snježana Prijić-Samaržija
    • 2
  • Mladen Petrovečki
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Medical Informatics, School of MedicineUniversity of RijekaRijekaCroatia
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities and Social SciencesUniversity of RijekaRijekaCroatia
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Laboratory DiagnosticsDubrava Clinical HospitalZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations