Journal of Academic Ethics

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 71–87 | Cite as

A Cross-Sectional Survey Study to Assess Prevalence and Attitudes Regarding Research Misconduct among Investigators in the Middle East

  • Marwan Felaefel
  • Mohamed Salem
  • Rola Jaafar
  • Ghufran Jassim
  • Hillary Edwards
  • Fiza Rashid-Doubell
  • Reham Yousri
  • Nahed M. Ali
  • Henry Silverman


Recent studies from Western countries indicate significant levels of questionable research practices, but similar data from low and middle-income countries are limited. Our aims were to assess the prevalence of and attitudes regarding research misconduct among researchers in several universities in the Middle East and to identify factors that might account for our findings. We distributed an anonymous questionnaire to a convenience sample of investigators at several universities in Egypt, Lebanon, and Bahrain. Participants were asked to a) self-report their extent of research misconducts, as well as their knowledge of colleagues engaging in similar research misconducts and b) provide their extent of agreement with certain attitudes about research misconduct. We used descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate logistic regression statistics to analyze the data. Data from 278 participants showed a high prevalence of misconduct, as 59.4% of our respondents self-reported to committing at least one misbehaviors and 74.5% reported having knowledge of any misbehaviors among any of their colleagues. The most common type of self-report misconduct was “circumventing research ethics regulations” (50.5%) followed by “fabrication and falsification” (28.6%). A significant predictor of misconduct included a lack of “prior ethics training”. Scientific misconduct represents a significant issue in several universities in the Middle East. The demonstration that a lack of “prior ethics training” was a significant predictor of misconduct should lead to educational initiatives in research integrity. Further studies are needed to confirm whether our results can be generalized to other universities in the Middle East.


Research ethics Research misconduct Responsible conduct in research Middle East 



Supported by Award Number R25TW007090–10 of the Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health.


  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. Scholar
  2. Bamford, J., & Sergiou, K. (2005). International students and plagiarism: an analysis of the reasons for plagiarism among nternational foundation students. Investigations in University Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 17–22.Google Scholar
  3. Bohannon, J. (2014). Study of massive preprint archive hints at the geography of plagiarism. Science. Retrievalbe at:
  4. Broome, M. E., Pryor, E., Habermann, B., Pulley, L., & Kincaid, H. (2005). The scientific misconduct questionnaire--revised (SMQ-R): validation and psychometric testing. Accountability in Research, 12(4), 263–280. Scholar
  5. Brown, S., & Kalichman, M. (1998). Effects of training in the responsible conduct of research: a survey of graduate students in experimental sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 4, 487–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruhn, J. G. (2009). The functionality of gray area ethics in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bursac, Z., Gauss, C. H., Williams, D. K., & Hosmer, D. W. (2008). Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code for Biology and Medicine, 3, 17. Scholar
  8. Buzzelli, D. E. (1993). The definition of misconduct in science: a view from NSF. Science, 259(5095), 584–585 647-588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Citron, D. T., & Ginsparg, P. (2015). Patterns of text reuse in scientific corpus. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sceinces, 112(1), 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, M. S. (2003). The role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 10(3), 189–201. Scholar
  11. Dhingra, D., & Mishra, D. (2014). Publication misconduct among medical professionals in India. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 11(2), 104–107.Google Scholar
  12. Eastwood, S., Derish, P., Leash, E., et al. (1996). Ethical issues in biomedical research: perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellow responding to a survey. Science Eng Ethics, 2, 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoSOne, 4, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geggie, D. (2001). A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards research fraud. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27(5), 344–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heitman, E., & Litewka, S. (2011). International perspectives on plagiarism and considerations for teaching international trainees. Urologic Oncology, 29(1), 104–108. Scholar
  16. Kalichman, M. W., & Freidman, P. J. (1992). A pilot study of bomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine, 67, 769–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., Crain, A. L., & 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. Scholar
  19. Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mundt, L. A. (2008). Perceptions of scientific misconduct among graduate allied health students relative to ethics education and gender. Journal of Allied Health, 37(4), 221–224.Google Scholar
  21. Nussenzveig, P. A., & Zukanovich Funchal, R. (2008). Integrity: misconduct by a few damages credibility for many. Nature, 454(7204), 574; author reply 575. Scholar
  22. Okonta, P., & Rossouw, T. (2013). Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria. Developing World Bioethics, 13(3), 149–157. Scholar
  23. 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, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pryor, E. R., Habermann, B., & Broome, M. E. (2007). Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: a national survey. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(6), 365–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Silverman, H. J. (2000). Organizational ethics in health care organizations: proactively managing the ethical climate to ensure organizational integrity. HEC Forum, 12, 202–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. The Office of Research Integrity (2016). Definition of Research Misconduct. Retrievable at:
  27. Trikalinos, N. A., Evangelou, E., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2008). Falsified papers in high-impact journals were slow to retract and indistinguishable from nonfraudulent papers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(5), 464–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.American University in CairoNew CairoEgypt
  2. 2.American University of Beirut Medical CenterBeirutLebanon
  3. 3.Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland - Medical University of BahrainBusaiteenBahrain
  4. 4.University of Maryland School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  5. 5.Cairo UniversityCairoEgypt
  6. 6.Suez Canal UniversityIsmailiaEgypt

Personalised recommendations