A Study on the Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Research Integrity among Medical Professionals in Ningxia, China

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4168541/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

A Study on the Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Research Integrity among Medical Professionals in Ningxia, China

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4168541/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

This study utilizes a Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) questionnaire to investigate the awareness of medical professionals in the Ningxia region regarding research integrity and their attitudes towards academic misconduct. A comprehensive analysis of the factors contributing to academic misconduct is performed, with the aim of providing insights for the formulation of policies to enhance research integrity. The research employs a self-designed KAP survey questionnaire distributed online for clinical doctors and nurses in hospitals, faculty members in medical higher education institutions, and undergraduates enrolled in medical schools in the Ningxia region. A total of 1013 valid questionnaires were collected, with a majority of participants (76.2%) having received training in research integrity. Most respondents demonstrated a basic understanding of research integrity and maintained a resistant attitude towards academic misconduct. However, there exists an insufficient awareness of certain forms of academic misconduct, indicating the need for further reinforcement of the stance against such behaviors. The study recommends implementing multifaceted measures to enhance the ethical awareness and attitudes of researchers.

Scientific research integrity

knowledge attitude practice

Research integrity is a fundamental requirement in scientific research, serving as the cornerstone of scientific development and societal progress. It is the essence of technological innovation and a prerequisite for every researcher's scientific competence. Adherence to the rules of research integrity is imperative to ensure the credibility, reliability, and sustainability of scientific research, fostering academic exchange and collaboration, and advancing the accumulation and innovation of scientific knowledge. In recent years, the field of medical research in China has yielded abundant achievements; however, simultaneously, instances of academic misconduct in scientific research have increased prevalently. Such misconduct not only tarnishes the academic ethos but also poses a hindrance to the healthy development of the scientific and technological enterprise. China has placed high importance on preventing and addressing research misconduct, evidenced by the introduction of several significant policy documents, such as "Opinions on Further Strengthening the Construction of Research Integrity" and "Knowledge Handbook on Research Integrity" ^[1][2]. These policies aim to standardize, guide, and reinforce the construction of academic integrity.

The development of medical research holds crucial significance for human health and societal progress. Continuous research and innovations have contributed to improving disease prevention and treatment, advancing medical technology, promoting the accumulation and dissemination of medical knowledge, and enhancing overall health and quality of life. Medical academic misconduct refers to intentional fabrication, tampering, or concealment of data, results, methods, and other information in medical research and academic activities. Such behavior poses serious harm to the field of medicine and society at large, impacting the authenticity and reliability of scientific research and impeding scientific progress. Furthermore, falsified research results may mislead other researchers, leading them to conduct studies based on incorrect foundations, resulting in the wastage of time and resources. If fake research results are applied in clinical practice, they can pose health risks to patients and potentially lead to erroneous diagnoses and treatment decisions. Therefore, stringent regulation and penalties are necessary to uphold the integrity and reliability of medical research.

Undergraduate students represent the foundational force for future research activities. Enhancing their knowledge of research integrity and reducing the likelihood of future academic misconduct is of paramount importance for the academic ethos and long-term development of scientific research in our country. Although most universities have corresponding regulations regarding academic misconduct, the actual effectiveness of these measures has proven less than ideal. Investigating how to strengthen the prevention and control of academic misconduct among undergraduate students is a topic that merits in-depth research.

According to the analyses of Graf C ^[3] and Awad MK ^[4], the reasons for the lack of research integrity primarily include: a weak awareness of integrity among researchers, a lack of emphasis and recognition of research integrity, insufficient self-restraint among researchers, a deficiency in self-discipline and self-monitoring abilities, an inadequate evaluation mechanism for research integrity, a lack of effective assessment and supervisory mechanisms for research integrity, leading to delayed detection and handling of violations, and an imperfect system of supervision and rewards and punishments, with insufficient penalties for research integrity violations, making researchers insufficiently fearful of ethical issues. The occurrence of academic misconduct is not attributed to a single factor. Research assessment pressures are also one of the crucial influencing factors for researchers' academic misconduct behaviors ^[5]. On the other hand, the academic atmosphere and the behavior of peers have a subtle influence on the academic ethics and research attitudes of researchers. Individual behavior is significantly influenced by the behavior of those around them ^[6]. These factors to some extent impact the occurrence of academic misconduct, yet it remains unclear which factors are the primary influencers and the extent to which they may affect academic misconduct.

Therefore, this study employs a questionnaire survey method to investigate the levels of research integrity among doctors and nurses in hospitals, university faculty in the medical field, and undergraduate students. The study analyzes the factors influencing their research behavior and delves into the reasons behind the occurrence of academic misconduct. Through this research, we aim to provide valuable reference points for the formulation of policies aimed at elevating research integrity levels.

1.1 Research Objects:

The research enrolled clinical doctors and nurses in hospitals, faculty members in medical higher education institutions, and undergraduate students in medical schools in the Ningxia region.

1.2 Survey Methods:

A self-designed Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) survey questionnaire was utilized for the study. The survey was distributed through the online platform provided by Questionnaire Star to facilitate data collection and analysis. The questionnaire aimed to comprehensively investigate the awareness and attitudes of clinical doctors, nurses, faculty members, and undergraduate students towards academic misconduct. The insights gained from the survey are intended to serve as references and foundations for future efforts to enhance academic integrity in the field of medicine. The questionnaire comprised two parts: the first part collected basic information about the research participants, including personal background and professional details. The second part focused on academic misconduct, with 38 questions designed to assess knowledge, behavior, and attitudes. The questionnaire employed a combination of multiple-choice and single-choice questions, and for assessing the degree of agreement, a Likert five-point scale was employed.

2.1 Questionnaire Retrieval:

A total of 1122 questionnaires were distributed in this survey, with 1013 valid responses received, resulting in a questionnaire effective retrieval rate of 90%.

2.2 Statistical Analysis:

After data collection, SPSS 27.0 software was employed for data entry and processing.

2.3 Basic Information of Research Participants:

The demographic variables included gender, age, occupation, education level, academic qualifications, and professional titles. Following the analysis of the data sample using SPSS 27.0, specific information about the surveyed participants is presented in Table 1:

Table 1

Basic Information of Surveyed Participants
Question	Options	Number	Percentage
Gender	Male	278	27.4%
Gender	Female	735	72.6%
Age	20—30 years	325	32.1%
	30—40 years	411	40.6%
	40—50 years	180	17.8%
	50—60 years	97	9.6%
Occupation	Doctors and nurses	791	78.1%
	University Teachers and Full-time Researchers	24	2.4%
	Students	198	18.5%
Education	Bachelor’s degree and below	668	65.9%
Education	Graduate degree	345	34.1%
Professional title	Junior	210	20.7%
	Intermediate	362	35.7%
	Senior	229	22.6%
	Students and others	212	20.9%

As shown in Table 1, among the 1013 participants in the survey, 27.4% were male, and 72.6% were female, indicating a higher representation of females in the sample. Regarding age distribution, the majority fell within the age brackets of 30–40 years (40.6%) and 20–30 years (32.1%). In terms of occupation, doctors and nurses constituted the highest proportion at 78.1%. Regarding education level, the majority had a bachelor's degree or below (65.9%). Regarding professional titles, the distribution was relatively even across all levels, with a higher percentage in the mid-level category at 35.7%.

2.4 Research Experience of Surveyed Participants:

According to the data presented in Table 2, a majority of the participants (66.2%) had published articles. Among them, 49.2% had published articles in Chinese journals, representing a significant proportion. Additionally, 15.7% of participants had published multiple articles in both Chinese and English SCI journals. Regarding the involvement in provincial and ministerial-level or higher-level projects, the majority (70.3%) stated that they had not been involved in such projects. Furthermore, over 50% of participants spent less than one month on research annually.

Table 2

Research Experience of Surveyed Participants

Question

Options

Number

Percentage

Have you published articles?

342

33.8%

Only published in Chinese journals

498

49.2%

Only published in English SCI journals

1.4%

Published in both Chinese and English journals

159

15.7%

Have you led or participated in provincial and ministerial-level or higher-level projects?

712

70.3%

Yes, 1–2 projects

214

21.1%

Yes, 3 projects and above

6.3%

Are you a master's or doctoral supervisor?

Yes

8.9%

923

91.1%

Time available for academic research each year

Within 1 month

589

58.14%

2–4 months

270

26.65%

4–8 months

103

10.17%

9–12 months

5.03%

3.1 Understanding of Research Integrity/Academic Misconduct Knowledge

The survey results indicate that a majority of participants (76.2%) have received training in research integrity, with 47.77% of them attending 1–2 sessions of research integrity training(show in Table 3).

Regarding the understanding of research integrity and academic misconduct, a relatively large proportion (44.92%) stated that they have a basic understanding. However, nearly 10% of respondents claimed to have no knowledge in this area. In terms of familiarity with the punitive measures related to academic misconduct at their respective institutions, the highest percentage (43.67%) claimed to have a basic understanding, but over 10% indicated complete unawareness. Additionally, 52.31% of respondents believed that a repetition rate above 30% might indicate plagiarism. This result suggests a lenient attitude toward repetition rates, highlighting a lack of awareness regarding plagiarism.

Table 3

Understanding of Research Integrity/Academic Misconduct Knowledge
		Number	Percentage
Have you received research integrity training?	No	242	23.9%
	Yes, 1–2 times	479	47.3%
	Yes, 3 times and above	292	28.8%
Understanding of research integrity and academic misconduct knowledge	Completely unaware	95	9.4%
	Not very familiar	308	30.4%
	Basic understanding	450	44.4%
	Very familiar	160	15.8%
Awareness of punitive measures for academic misconduct at your institution	Completely unaware	106	10.5%
	Not very familiar	336	33.2%
	Basic understanding	440	43.4%
	Very familiar	131	12.9%

3.2 Perspectives on the Causes of Academic Misconduct and Measures to Reduce Such Behavior

Approximately 45.28% of respondents believe that academic misconduct is not prevalent in their surroundings. However, over 50% of individuals think that plagiarism, fabrication or falsification, improper authorship, and simultaneous submission of manuscripts are relatively common. As shown in Table 4, More than 70% of respondents believe that the main reasons for academic misconduct are a lack of understanding of academic ethical norms, a deficiency in personal integrity awareness, individual inadequacy in research capabilities, and excessive pressure. When it comes to measures for academic misconduct reduction, over 70% of individuals believe that strengthening research integrity training, improving the assessment methods for research outcomes, and enhancing personal research capabilities can decrease instances of academic misconduct. Additionally, more than 80% of respondents express a desire to learn about relevant laws and regulations, classic cases of academic misconduct, and the punitive measures for academic misconduct during research integrity training.

Table 4

Perspectives on the Causes of Academic Misconduct and Measures to Reduce Such Behavior
	Options	Number	Percentage
Causes of Academic Misconduct	Insufficient understanding of academic ethical norms, lack of integrity awareness	766	75.60%
	Existing evaluation systems are not rational enough	562	55.50%
	Influence of societal utilitarian factors	700	69.10%
	Individual inadequacy in research capabilities, excessive pressure	744	73.40%
	Weak regulatory systems, inadequate punitive measures	464	45.80%
	Lack of time for scientific research	583	57.60%
	Uncertain	118	11.60%
	Other	11	1.10%
Measures to Reduce Academic Misconduct	Strengthen research integrity training	819	80.80%
	Increase the severity of penalties for academic misconduct	686	67.70%
	Improve research outcome assessment methods	766	75.60%
	Enhance personal research capabilities	760	75.00%
	Uncertain	83	8.20%
	Other	14	1.40%

3.3 Attitudes Toward Academic Misconduct:

As shown in Table 5, the survey results indicate that a significant majority of participants (75.04%) cannot tolerate academic misconduct. When asked about the severity of academic misconduct issues in China, over 50% of respondents believe it to be a serious problem. Additionally, 62.3% of individuals consider training in research integrity-related knowledge to be highly important. Regarding the attitude towards punishing all authors when academic misconduct occurs in an article, 61.50% express agreement, while approximately 15% oppose this viewpoint. Although over 60% of participants would reject various forms of academic misconduct, there is still more than 25% participants expresses acceptance for actions such as simultaneous submission and synonym replacement to reduce duplication.

Table 5

Attitudes Toward Academic Misconduct
Content	Attitude	Percentage
How do you view the act of making minor modifications, not adding citations or explanations, to use others' already published views, data, images, experimental methods, etc., and publishing it under your name?	Accept	14.17%
	Neither accept nor reject	12.30%
	Reject	73.53%
How do you view the act of using "synonym replacement" to reduce the similarity index of a paper?	Accept	33.07%
	Neither accept nor reject	27.90%
	Reject	39.04%
How do you view the act of extracting parts of content from multiple of your (or your co-authored) previously published papers, splicing them into a new paper, and publishing it without any explanation?	Accept	13.46%
	Neither accept nor reject	18.45%
	Reject	68.09%
How do you view the act of submitting the same paper to two or more journals when it urgently needs to be published?	Accept	26.83%
	Neither accept nor reject	24.60%
	Reject	48.57%
How do you view the act of attributing authorship to individuals who have not made a substantive contribution to the research mentioned in the paper?	Accept	18.99%
	Neither accept nor reject	21.84%
	Reject	59.18%
How do you view the act of deleting data and only selecting data that supports the original hypothesis when experimental results conflict with the initial hypothesis?	Accept	15.51%
	Neither accept nor reject	19.96%
	Reject	64.53%

3.4 Individual Practices Regarding Research Integrity

As shown in Table 6, 44.39% of individuals always check for plagiarism before publishing an article. The majority of people prefer to use CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang Data as plagiarism checking tools. When encountering instances of academic misconduct among acquaintances, 54.63% of respondents would choose to privately and kindly advise the individuals, while 21% would opt to report the misconduct to relevant authorities. Concerning the effectiveness of research integrity training methods, 48.84% believe that offline training is the most effective. Additionally, 80% of participants consider a training frequency of every six months to a year as appropriate.

Table 6

Individual Practices Regarding Research Integrity
		Frequency	Percentage
Do you always check for plagiarism before publishing an article?	Always	446	44%
	Often	268	26.5%
	Sometimes	140	13.8%
	Occasionally	96	9.5%
	Never	63	6.2%
Do you carefully read the contents of the "Research Integrity Commitment" each time you sign it?	Always	546	53.9%
	Often	261	25.8%
	Sometimes	116	11.5%
	Occasionally	70	6.9%
	Never	20	2%
If you learn that someone around you is engaged in academic misconduct, what would you choose to do?	Report to relevant authorities	213	21%
	Privately advise them	555	54.8%
	It's unrelated to me; pretend not to know	154	15.2%
	Other	91	9%
Which method of research integrity training do you think is most effective?	Offline training	494	48.8%
	Distributing printed materials for self-study	171	16.9%
	Online training	342	33.8%
	Other	6	0.6%
How often do you think research integrity training is appropriate?	Every six months	546	53.9%
	Once a year	374	36.9%
	Every 2–5 years	57	5.6%
	Only once	36	3.6%

4.1 Attitudes of Survey Participants Towards Academic Misconduct

As the variables related to attitudes toward academic misconduct are continuous, a descriptive statistical analysis using a one-sample t-test was conducted to examine the current situation. The analysis results are as follows:

From the Table 7, it can be observed that the mean value for the acceptance level of academic misconduct is 3.53. The p-value from the one-sample t-test is less than 0.05, indicating that the attitudes of the participants in this survey toward academic misconduct fall into the rejection zone as a whole.

Table 7

Attitudes of Survey Participants Towards Academic Misconduct

Mean ± standard deviation

Test value

Attitudes Towards Academic Misconduct

3.53 ± 0.89

19.1

< 0.001

Note: Since it is a Likert 5-scale measurement, where 3 points represent neutrality, the test value is set at 3.

4.2 Influence of Demographic Variables on Various Variables:

Due to the possibility that different factors such as gender, occupation, and educational background may influence attitudes toward academic misconduct, this section separately examines the variations in attitudes toward academic misconduct concerning gender, occupation, and educational background.

4.2.1 Impact of Gender on Attitudes Towards Academic Misconduct and Awareness of Knowledge and Punishment

The analysis results in Table 8 indicate that there is no significant difference between males and females in terms of attitudes towards academic misconduct. All p-values are greater than 0.05, suggesting that gender does not affect attitudes toward academic misconduct.

Table 8

Influence of Gender on Attitudes and Knowledge Awareness
	Male(n = 278)	Female (n = 735)	t	P
Attitudes towards misconduct	3.54 ± 0.95	3.53 ± 0.87	0.122	0.903
Knowledge and punishment awareness	2.63 ± 0.83	2.63 ± 0.77	0.054	0.957
Note: The t-test examines whether there is a significant difference in means between two independent samples.

4.2.2 Impact of Occupation on Attitudes Towards Academic Misconduct and Knowledge and Punishment Awareness

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare the impact of different occupations on attitudes toward academic misconduct. The results are as follows:

There are significant differences in attitudes towards academic misconduct and knowledge awareness of punishment among hospital staff, university teachers and researchers, and students (all p-values < 0.05). University teachers and researchers express the highest level of rejection, while students show the lowest level. In terms of knowledge about research integrity and punishment measures, university teachers and researchers have the highest awareness, while students have the least(show in Table 9).

Table 9

Influence of Occupation on Attitudes and Knowledge Awareness
	Hospital Staff (n = 791)	University Teachers and Researchers (n = 24)	Students (n = 198)	F	p
Attitudes towards misconduct	3.59 ± 0.84	4.15 ± 0.87	3.25 ± 1.00	17.843	< 0.001
Knowledge and punishment awareness	2.73 ± 0.74	3.19 ± 0.51	2.16 ± 0.80	52.711	< 0.001
Note: One-Way ANOVA is used for comparing means among more than two independent groups.

4.2.3 Impact of Education on Attitudes Towards Academic Misconduct and Knowledge and Punishment Awareness

The results shown in the Table 10 indicate a significant correlation between educational level and attitudes towards academic misconduct and knowledge awareness of punishment. As education level increases, there is a higher degree of rejection towards academic misconduct and greater knowledge about related issues.

Table 10

Influence of Education on Attitudes and Knowledge Awareness
	College and others	Bachelor’s	Master’s	Doctorate	F	P
Attitudes towards misconduct	3.23 ± 1.16	3.4 ± 0.93	3.73 ± 0.72	4.07 ± 0.59	21.001	< 0.001
Knowledge and punishment awareness	2.38 ± 0.98	2.43 ± 0.79	2.94 ± 0.59	3.26 ± 0.51	52.862	< 0.001
Note: One-Way ANOVA is used for comparing means among more than two independent groups.

4.3 Correlation Between Awareness and Attitudes

The statistical analysis reveals significant positive correlations between the level of understanding of research integrity-related knowledge, awareness of punishment measures for academic misconduct, and the frequency of receiving research integrity training with attitudes towards various forms of academic misconduct. All correlation coefficients are less than 0.05, indicating a noteworthy association, and they are consistently greater than 0, suggesting a positive relationship(show in Table 11).

Table 11

Relationship between Training Frequency, Knowledge Awareness, Understanding of Punishment Measures, and Attitudes
	Knowledge Awareness of Research Integrity	Punishment Understanding of Academic Misconduct	Received Research Integrity Training
Attitude towards Unacknowledged Citations	0.298**	0.224**	0.241**
Attitude towards Synonym Replacement	0.173**	0.227**	0.141**
Attitude towards Article Splicing	0.287**	0.257**	0.221**
Attitude towards Multiple Submissions	0.259**	0.259**	0.234**
Attitude towards Improper Authorship	0.215**	0.207**	0.176**
Attitude towards Removing Undesirable Data	0.267**	0.228**	0.235**
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

4.4 Impact of Research Integrity Training on Awareness of Plagiarism Concerns in Paper Similarity Checking

The results of the chi-square test show that there is no significant difference in awareness regarding the issue of paper similarity checking between those who have undergone research training and those who have not (P = 0.105). This suggests that the content of research integrity training in this aspect may have some shortcomings. Therefore, during training, it may be beneficial to incorporate additional content related to paper similarity checking to enhance participants' awareness of this issue(Table 12).

Table 12

Impact of Research Integrity Training on Awareness of Plagiarism Concerns in Paper Similarity Checking
		Considered High Similarity Rate Suspected of Plagiarism		Chi-square	P
		Below 30%	Above 30%	Chi-square	P
Training Attendance	None	125(51.70%)	117(48.30%)	4.516	0.105
	1–2 times	226(47.20%)	2530(52.80%)
	3 times and above	124(42.50%)	168(57.50%)

From the questionnaire on academic misconduct in this survey, it is evident that some individuals in the medical field lack adequate awareness and understanding of academic misconduct. The survey results show that nearly 20% of healthcare workers claim to have not received relevant training on academic misconduct, and over half of undergraduate students have not undergone such training. Additionally, more than 30% of healthcare workers and 70% of undergraduate students have limited or no knowledge of research integrity and academic misconduct. Although the majority of respondents hold a negative attitude towards academic misconduct, there is still a portion that expresses acceptance or tolerance towards certain forms of academic misconduct. The survey results also indicate a lack of knowledge among respondents regarding academic misconduct, emphasizing the need for increased awareness and preventive measures in research activities. Prevention and punishment are complementary aspects of addressing academic misconduct, and the survey participants generally acknowledge the significant role of research integrity training in enhancing awareness and preventing academic misconduct. However, respondents express a limited understanding of the punishment measures for academic misconduct, both individually and within their institutions (workplace or school). This lack of awareness might contribute to ineffective deterrence and a deficiency in an efficient regulatory mechanism to curb academic misconduct.

Furthermore, the survey results reveal various reasons behind academic misconduct. The top three factors cited by respondents are insufficient understanding of academic ethical norms and a lack of personal integrity awareness, inadequate personal research capabilities coupled with excessive pressure, and the influence of societal utilitarian factors. Effective measures to reduce academic misconduct, according to the respondents, include strengthening research integrity training, improving research outcome evaluation methods, and enhancing individual research capabilities. These findings highlight the importance of targeted interventions to address the specific needs and characteristics of different groups.

In line with the viewpoint of McNutt ^[7], developed countries also face challenges related to research integrity, sharing certain commonalities with developing countries. Therefore, in fostering research integrity, developed and developing countries can mutually benefit from sharing experiences. However, research integrity is influenced by various factors, including personal and institutional factors, and there are differences in the influencing factors across different countries. Sullivan ^[8] explored the basic paths for developing countries to foster research integrity and analyzed the patterns of research integrity development. Developing countries need to consider experiences from developed countries and their own research environments to formulate effective strategies for fostering research integrity.

Based on the above findings, we propose several measures to address academic misconduct:

Strengthening Research Integrity Training: The survey results indicate that 24% of respondents have never participated in training related to research integrity, and nearly half lack a comprehensive understanding of this knowledge and the punitive measures following academic misconduct. Furthermore, statistical analysis reveals that individuals who have undergone multiple research integrity training sessions tend to hold more stringent attitudes towards academic misconduct compared to those who have not participated or have had fewer training sessions. However, it is noteworthy that the frequency of training sessions does not enhance respondents' awareness of plagiarism in their research. Therefore, addressing the insufficient understanding of research integrity among respondents calls for an intensified approach to research integrity training. The content of such training should be refined to enhance participants' awareness and understanding of academic misconduct.

In addition, the results highlight significant differences in the attitudes towards academic misconduct and the level of understanding of research integrity, as well as punitive measures among hospital staff, university teachers, researchers, and current students. To address these disparities, targeted research integrity training and education tailored to the characteristics and needs of different groups are recommended. For healthcare professionals, periodic training on research integrity-related knowledge can be conducted, utilizing a combination of offline and online methods. The content may include relevant legal regulations, policies, punitive measures for academic misconduct, and analysis of classic academic misconduct case studies. For current students, offering courses on academic ethics education can enable them to systematically learn about research norms, definitions of academic misconduct, and corresponding penalty measures. Through targeted training and education, awareness and behavioral norms related to research integrity can be enhanced among diverse groups, further promoting the development of research integrity.

Enhancing Individual Research Capabilities: To reduce the occurrence of academic misconduct, it is crucial to enhance individual research capabilities. Researchers with strong research capabilities typically possess a solid academic foundation and professional knowledge, enabling them to conduct high-quality research and propose innovative perspectives and findings. They exhibit sufficient confidence and competence to address research challenges through legitimate means, without resorting to dishonest practices for results. To improve individual research capabilities, hospitals and educational institutions can regularly organize training sessions on research methods and skills, including research design and data analysis. Inviting experts and scholars for academic lectures and workshops on the latest research developments can broaden participants' research perspectives and enhance their research capabilities. By elevating individual research capabilities, mitigating research pressure, and strengthening the confidence and competence of researchers, motivations for adopting dishonest practices can be reduced, ultimately decreasing the occurrence of academic misconduct. Therefore, hospitals and educational institutions should prioritize the cultivation of research capabilities, providing necessary training and support to facilitate the development of research integrity.

Enhancing Regulatory Oversight and Evaluation Systems, and Intensifying Punishment Measures: Addressing respondents' concerns about inadequate regulatory systems and insufficient punishment measures calls for an increase in the severity of penalties for academic misconduct. Establishing strict systems and procedures for dealing with violations can act as a deterrent. Strengthening supervision over research activities, implementing robust systems and standards, and intensifying scrutiny of research projects can ensure the legitimacy and integrity of research activities. To address perceived shortcomings in the existing evaluation system, improvements should be made to ensure fairness, objectivity, and effectiveness in evaluating research outcomes. This will better encourage and reward honest and trustworthy research behavior.

Despite providing valuable insights, this study has limitations, including the relatively limited number of surveyed hospitals and schools. Consequently, survey results may not accurately reflect the knowledge and attitudes of individuals in the medical field towards academic misconduct. To obtain more reliable and effective data support, future research should expand the scope of the investigation and increase the sample size. Additionally, utilizing multiple methods, such as in-depth interviews or observational studies, can provide a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of academic misconduct. Despite these limitations, this study provides a scientific basis for formulating policies to improve research integrity. Future research, building on these findings, can further delve into the issue of academic misconduct to promote the development and maintenance of research integrity.

1.Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the ethics review committee of Ningxia Medical University General Hospital. (approval number: KYLL-2024-0544)

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s)

2. Consent for publication

Not applicable

3.Availability of data and materials

Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files

4.Competing interests

I declare that the authors have no competing interests as defined by BMC, or other interests that might be perceived to influence the results and/or discussion reported in this paper.

5.Funding

This work was supported by grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (82260300)

6.Authors' contributions

Yiran Jin: Writing – Original draft, Conceptualization, Data curation

Jie Wei: Conceptualization, Investigation

Dan Liu: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Project administration

Sang Luo: Writing – review & editing, Project administration

Liwei Yuan: Validation

Jingyi Zhang: data analysis

Xiaojie Zou: data analysis

Author Yiran Jin and Author Jie Wei share first authorship.

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Central Committee General Office of the Communist Party of China, State Council General Office. Several Opinions on Further Strengthening the Construction of Research Integrity[J]. Nurs Pract Res. 2020;17(24):1–3.
Office of Research Integrity Construction, Ministry of Science and Technology. Knowledge Primer on Research Integrity[M]. Beijing: Science and Technology Literature; 2009.
Graf C. The pillars of publication ethics and research integrity: spread the word[J]. Chin Med J. 2017;130(12):1502–11.
Awad MK, Zogheib B, Alazemi HM. On the optimality of escalating penalties for repeat offences against the academic honors code[J]. Applied economics,2016,48(7):553–62.
Chang YP, Jiang YB. An Empirical Study on the Influencing Factors of Academic Misconduct among University Scholars—Data Analysis Based on Individual Factors[J]. Stud Sci Sci. 2008;26(06):1238–42.
Wang XY, Lin S, Chen LY. Research on the Impact Mechanism of Research Pressure on Research Performance—The Regulatory Effects of Academic Atmosphere and Emotional Intelligence[J]. Stud Sci Sci. 2013;31(10):1564–71.
Mcnutt M, Lehnert K, Hanson B, et al. Scientific integrity. Liberating field Sci samples data [J] Sci. 2016;351(6277):1024–6.
Sullivan S. Exploring perceptions and experiences with research ethics in Bolivia[J]. Annals Global Health, 2014(3):179–80.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
27 Jun, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
24 Jun, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
23 Jun, 2024
Reviews received at journal
23 Jun, 2024
Reviews received at journal
22 Jun, 2024
Reviews received at journal
21 Jun, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
21 Jun, 2024
Reviews received at journal
20 Jun, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
20 Jun, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
18 Jun, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
17 Jun, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
17 Jun, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
17 Jun, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
10 Jun, 2024
Editor invited by journal
10 Apr, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
09 Apr, 2024
First submitted to journal
26 Mar, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

A Study on the Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Research Integrity among Medical Professionals in Ningxia, China

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Research Objects and Methods

Research Results and Analysis

Current Situation Analysis

Differences and Correlation Analysis

Discussion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1