Authorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: Views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers

BMJ Open

Volumn 7, Issue 11, 2017, Pages

  Rohwer, Anke ^a   Young, Taryn ^a,b   Wager, Elizabeth ^c,d   Garner, Paul ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH   (South Africa)

^b SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (South Africa)

^c Sideview   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT   (Croatia)

^e LIVERPOOL SCHOOL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

authorship; conflict of interest; interviews; plagiarism; research integrity; survey

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; E-MAIL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERVIEW; MALE; MIDDLE INCOME COUNTRY; PUBLISHING; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECYCLING; SCIENTIST; WRITING; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MIDDLE AGED; RESEARCH ETHICS; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ADULT; AUTHORSHIP; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; ETHICS, RESEARCH; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PLAGIARISM; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT;

EID: 85045180991     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018467     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Steneck N. ORI Introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Washington DC, USA: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2007.
2. Bouter LM, Tijdink J, Axelsen N, et al. Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four world conferences on research integrity. Res Integr Peer Rev 2016;1:17.
3. Wislar JS, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, et al. Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. BMJ 2011;343:d6128.
4. Tramèr MR, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA, et al. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ 1997;315:635-40.
5. Centre for Science in the Public Interest. Unrevealed: non-disclosure of conflicts of interest in four leading medical and scientific journals. 2004 https:// cspinet. org/ resource/ unrevealed-non-disclosureconflicts-interest-four-leading-medical-and-scientific-journals.
6. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005;435:737-8.
7. Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 2009;4:e5738.
8. Pupovac V, Fanelli D. Scientists admitting to plagiarism: a metaanalysis of surveys. Sci Eng Ethics 2015;21:1331-52.
9. Marusic A, Bosnjak L, Jeroncic A. A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS One 2011;6:e23477.
10. Ana J, Koehlmoos T, Smith R, et al. Research misconduct in lowand middle-income countries. PLoS Med 2013;10:e1001315.
11. Resnik DB, Rasmussen LM, Kissling GE. An international study of research misconduct policies. Account Res 2015;22:249-66.
12. Kombe F, Anunobi EN, Tshifugula NP, et al. Promoting research integrity in Africa: an African voice of concern on research misconduct and the way forward. Dev World Bioeth 2014;14:158-66.
13. Bank W. World Bank list of economies. 2016 http:// Siteresources. worldbank. org/ DATASTATISTICS/ Resources/ CLASS. XLS
14. Bunniss S, Kelly DR. Research paradigms in medical education research. Med Educ 2010;44:358-66.
15. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CL: Sage, 2011.
16. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, et al. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:117.
17. Atlas. ti GmbH. Atlas. ti. version 7.5. Berlin.
18. Nulty DD. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education 2008;33:301-14.
19. Evans JR, Mathur A. The value of online surveys. Inter Res 2005;15:195-219.
20. Kelley K, Clark B, Brown V, et al. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J Qual Health Care 2003;15:261-6.
21. Draugalis JR, Plaza CM. Best practices for survey research reports revisited: implications of target population, probability sampling, and response rate. Am J Pharm Educ 2009;73:142.
22. Fisher RJ, Katz JE. Social-desirability bias and the validity of selfreported values. Psychology and Marketing 2000;17:105-20.
23. Fisher RJ. Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. J Consum Res 1993;20:303-215.
24. Nederhof AJ. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: a review. Eur J Soc Psychol 1985;15:263-80.
25. Vlassov V, Groves T. The role of Cochrane Review authors in exposing research misconduct [editorial]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010:ED000015.
26. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. 2016 http://www. icmje. org/ recommendations/.
27. Dhingra D, Mishra D. Publication misconduct among medical professionals in India. Indian J Med Ethics 2014;11:104-7.
28. Okonta P, Rossouw T. Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria. Dev World Bioeth 2013;13:149-57.
29. Adeleye OA, Adebamowo CA. Factors associated with research wrongdoing in Nigeria. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2012;7:15-24.
30. Shirazi B, Jafarey AM, Moazam F. Plagiarism and the medical fraternity: a study of knowledge and attitudes. J Pak Med Assoc 2010;60:269-73.
31. Tijdink JK, Schipper K, Bouter LM, et al. How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers. BMJ Open 2016;6:e008681.
32. Fanelli D, Costas R, Larivière V. Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS One 2015;10:e0127556.
33. Street JM, Rogers WA, Israel M, et al. Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences. Soc Sci Med 2010;70:1458-65.
34. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA 2006;296:1103-15.
35. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:MR000033.
36. Yank V, Rennie D, Bero LA. Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2007;335:1202-5.
37. Akl EA, El-Hachem P, Abou-Haidar H, et al. Considering intellectual, in addition to financial, conflicts of interest proved important in a clinical practice guideline: a descriptive study. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:1222-8.
38. Viswanathan M, Carey TS, Belinson SE, et al. A proposed approach may help systematic reviews retain needed expertise while minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:1229-38.
39. Lieb K, von der Osten-Sacken J, Stoffers-Winterling J, et al. Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2016;6:e010606.
40. Hakoum MB, Anouti S, Al-Gibbawi M, et al. Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011997.
41. Maharaj SV. A new method for scoring financial conflicts of interest. Int J Occup Environ Health 2015;21:49-52.
42. Kojima T, Green J, Barron JP. Conflict-of-interest disclosure at medical journals in Japan: a nationwide survey of the practices of journal secretariats. BMJ Open 2015;5:e007957.