In this study, the levels of knowledge, awareness, and acceptance of research misconduct were investigated among the Pharmacy academics and students in Malaysia. A cross-sectional study using an online questionnaire was carried out. A total of 393 pharmacy academics and students in Malaysia were involved. Perceived research misconduct, as defined in this study as the perception of any research misconduct performed or observed by the respondents at their institution, was captured and further analyzed. The data was analysed using PLS-SEM to assess the hypotheses which were formulated prior to the survey. The findings show that there is a statistically significant positive relationship between the awareness of terminologies regarding research misconduct and perceived research misconduct in the workplace of respondents. However, the acceptance of unethical practices in research demonstrates a negative correlation with perceived research misconduct. Knowledge and awareness regarding research misconduct have no statistically significant relationship with perceived research misconduct in this study. Both awareness of terminologies and acceptance of unethical practices explained a 10.8% variance in perceived research misconduct. Therefore, our study indicates that the awareness, knowledge, and acceptance of research misconduct might not be the main predictors of questionable conduct of research among pharmacy academics and students. Future study on the relationship between other factors which might contribute to research misconduct is highly recommended to investigate the significant contributing factors of irresponsible conduct of research among the Pharmacy academics and students in Malaysia.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.
Ababneh, R. A., Alzoubi, K. H., & Ababneh, M. A. (2020). Evaluation of Pharmacy Students’ knowledge and perception of Scientific Integrity. Education Sciences, 10(2), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10020041
Abu Farha, R., Mukattash, T., & Al-Delaimy, W. (2021). Predictors of Plagiarism Research Misconduct: A study of Postgraduate Pharmacy students in Jordan. Journal of Academic Ethics, 19, 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09386-x
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. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2012.7.5.15
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. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c
Armond, A. C. V., Gordijn, B., Lewis, J., Hosseini, M., Bodnár, J. K., Holm, S., & Kakuk, P. (2021). A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases. BMC Medical Ethics, 22(1), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00620-8
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620500440253
Chang, S. J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.88
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least Squares Latent Variable modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an electronic-mail Emotion/Adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.188.8.131.5218
Desmond, H., & Dierickx, K. (2021). Research integrity codes of conduct in Europe: Understanding the divergences. Bioethics, 35(5), 414–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12851
Drolet, M.J., Rose-Derouin, E., Leblanc, J.C. et al. (2023) Ethical issues in research: Perceptions of researchers, research ethics board members and research ethics experts. Journal of Academic Ethics, 21, 269–292.–https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-022-09455-3
Elsayed, D. E. M. (2020). Fraud and Misconduct in Publishing Medical Research. Sudan Journal of Medical Sciences. https://doi.org/10.18502/sjms.v15i2.6693
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify Research? A systematic review and Meta-analysis of Survey Data. Plos One, 4(5), e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
Fischer, D. G., & Fick, C. (1993). Measuring Social Desirability: Short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(2), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053002011
Fisher, E. R., & Partin, K. M. (2014). The Challenges for scientists in avoiding plagiarism. Accountability in Research, 21(6), 353–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.877348
Gasparyan, A. Y., Nurmashev, B., Seksenbayev, B., Trukhachev, V. I., Kostyukova, E. I., & Kitas, G. D. (2017). Plagiarism in the Context of Education and Evolving Detection Strategies. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 32(8), 1220. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.8.1220
Hair, J. F. Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2018). Multivariate Data Analysis (8th ed.). New Delhi: Cengage Learning India Pvt. Ltd.
Hasan, S. S., Chong, K., Ahmadi, D. W., Se, K., Hassali, W. P., Hata, M. A., Hadi, E. M., Sridhar, M. A., Ahmed, S. B., Yean, S. I., L. B., & Efendie, B. (2010). Influences on malaysian pharmacy students’ career preferences. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(9), 166. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj7409166
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Horton, E. R., Morin, A., Pervanas, H. C., Mukherjee, S. M., & Belliveau, P. (2014). A Novel Structured Format for Engaging Pharmacy students in Bioethics Discussions. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(9), 171. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe789171
Jarab, A. S., Al-Qerem, W., & Mukattash, T. L. (2021). Career choices of pharmacy and pharm D undergraduates: Attitudes and preferences. Heliyon, 7(3), e06448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06448
Kadayam Guruswami, G., Mumtaz, S., Gopakumar, A., et al. (2022). Academic Integrity perceptions among Health-Professions’ students: A cross-sectional study in the Middle East. Journal of Academic Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-022-09452-6
Kang, H. (2021). Sample size determination and power analysis using the G*Power software. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 18, 17. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.17
Lehobye, N. M. (2010). Plagiarism: Misconduct Awareness on Novice Research within the Cyberworld. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 13(3), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2010/v13i3a2696
Li, D., & Cornelis, G. (2018). How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A transcultural case study of chinese and flemish researchers. Accountability in Research, 25(6), 350–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1507824
Lind, R. A., & Lepper, T. S. (2007). Sensitivity to research misconduct: A conceptual model. Medicine and Law, 26(3), 585–598. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17970254/
Malaysian Pharmacists Society (2023). Retrieved 25 June 2023, from https://www.mps.org.my/
Masic, I. (2014). Plagiarism in Scientific Research and Publications and how to prevent it. Materia Socio Medica, 26(2), 141. https://doi.org/10.5455/msm.2014.26.141-146
Olesen, A. P., Amin, L., & Mahadi, Z. (2017). Malaysian researchers talk about the influence of culture on research misconduct in higher learning institutions. Accountability in Research, 24(8), 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2017.1399358
Olesen, A. P., Amin, L., Mahadi, Z., & Ibrahim, M. (2019). Whistle blowing and research integrity: Potential remedy for research misconduct in malaysian institutions of higher education. Accountability in Research, 26(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1554444
Olesen, A. P., Amin, L., Mahadi, Z., & Ibrahim, M. (2020). Exploring the organisational context of research misconduct in higher learning institutions in Malaysia. Developing World Bioethics, 22(2), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12298
Qoronfleh, M. W. (2020). Health is a political choice: Why conduct healthcare research? Value, importance and outcomes to policy makers. Life Sciences Society and Policy, 16(1), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-020-00100-8
Reisig, M. D., Holtfreter, K., & Berzofsky, M. E. (2020). Assessing the perceived prevalence of research fraud among faculty at research-intensive universities in the USA. Accountability in Research, 27(7), 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1772060
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. (2017). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In C. Homburg, M. Klarmann, & A. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of Market Research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-1
Satalkar, P., & Shaw, D. (2018). Is failure to raise concerns about misconduct a breach of integrity? Researchers’ reflections on reporting misconduct. Accountability in Research, 25(6), 311–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1493577
Soper, D. (2022). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [Software]. Free Statistics Calculators. https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=89
Stratton, T. P. (2020). Incorporating Ethics Content throughout an Integrated Pharmacy Curriculum. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(11), 7865. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7865
The International Pharmaceutical Federation (2014). FIP statement of professional standards: Codes of ethics for pharmacists FIP Bureau. www.fip.org/statements
The Office of Research Integrity (ORI). (2022). Definition of Research Misconduct | ORI - The Office of Research Integrity. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct
Tienxhi, J. Y. (2017). The gender gap in malaysian public universities: Examining the Lost Boys. Journal of International and Comparative Education (JICE), 6(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14425/JICE.2017.6.1.0116
Were, E., Kaguiri, E., & Kiplagat, J. (2020). Perceptions of occurrence of research misconduct and related factors among kenyan investigators engaged in HIV research. Accountability in Research, 27(6), 372–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1759425
Xie, Y., Wang, K., & Kong, Y. (2021). Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A systematic review and Meta-analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(4), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9
We would like to thank Rawan Ababneh (Pharm D, M.Sc) from the Jordan Drug Information & Toxicology Centre/ Royal Medical Services, for sharing the questionnaire.
No funding is received in this study.
Conflict of Interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Ng, W.P., Pang, K.Y., Ooi, P.B. et al. Perceived Research Misconduct Among the Pharmacy Academics and Students: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study in Malaysia. J Acad Ethics (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09487-3