
==== Front
J Educ Health Promot
J Educ Health Promot
JEHP
J Edu Health Promot
Journal of Education and Health Promotion
2277-9531
2319-6440
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow India

JEHP-13-286
10.4103/jehp.jehp_73_24
Original Article
Instances of unethical performance of academic faculty members in conducting and publishing research works
Samouei Rahele
Meshkineh Narges 1
Mojiri Shahin PhD 2
Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
1 Master of Data Science, University of Verona, Italy
2 Health Information Technology Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Address for correspondence: Dr. Shahin Mojiri, Medical Library and Information Sciences, Health Information Technology Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. E-mail: shmojiri@mng.mui.ac.ir
2024
29 7 2024
13 28612 1 2024
23 2 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Education and Health Promotion
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
BACKGROUND:

Today, compliance with ethical principles and standards has become a concern of research ethics committees more than in the past, and the informed society is more demanding of researchers’ considerations and adherence. In this regard, a survey was conducted with the aim of determining instances of unethical behavior of faculty members in conducting and publishing research works.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

This study was performed cross-sectional with 100 faculty members answering in the form of systematic random sampling from the scientific measurement system of the Ministry of Health of Iran in August 2023 and testing using a checklist containing 32 examples of unethical research behavior. The data were reported using descriptive statistics and analytical methods such as Student’s t-test and analysis of variance.

RESULTS:

The findings of this study showed some instances of unethical practice in the field of research by the respondents, including submitting the article instead of the corresponding author, adding a guest author in the article, mentioning untrue affiliation, not observing the conflict of interest, conducting judgment with connivance, overlapping publications, manipulation of results, and other cases according to the findings of the text of the article, which was reported in professors of the master’s degree with a higher average (0.001, 7.12), but according to the gender and academic rank of the respondents, no significant difference was observed in the averages.

CONCLUSION:

The findings of this study show some clear instances of unethical practices in the field of research among faculty members and academic groups, and it requires targeted planning and more seriousness to investigate and manage its causes. The results of the study can be used for scientific groups and individuals who are directly and indirectly affected by the research results and researchers’ performance.

Ethics
faculty members
research
universities of medical sciences
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Among the main challenges in conducting research is observance of authenticity and correctness, as well as the ethical principles governing the research.[1] Ethics in research is a branch of professional ethics that deals with the ethical principles of research from design, implementation, and publication to follow-up of results,[23] it indicates the examination of the possibility and conditions of observing ethical rules and principles in researchers’ works,[4] and it is a guide for researchers from the beginning to the end of the work[2]; therefore, this view has been strengthened in the society that effective research should be monitored by ethical rules at every stage.[5] According to what has been said and based on observation in the current situation, compliance with ethical principles and standards has become the concern of research ethics committees more than in the past, and the informed society is more demanding of considerations and adherence of researchers. In this regard, published guidelines, activated ethics committees, organized workshops and training meetings, research calls, and such things show the great importance of observing publication ethics in research works and addressing it; however, despite all the pursuits and achievements in the field making research more ethical, we are still faced with numerous instances of ethical violations and their harmful effects in research. In this regard, the findings of a study showed that 64% of articles published in journals related to humanities and social sciences, as well as information systems and health, do not discuss ethical issues.[6] In addition, Boutchich reported in his study that nonobservance of research ethics has become very common in some universities,[7] and the results of Paruzel-Czachura et al.’s[8] study showed that 52% of university managers confirmed that they were aware of the dishonest actions of researchers.

In the meantime, some studies investigated the types and reasons for the unethical behavior of researchers, including the findings of a study that pointed to predatory publishing and questionable publication as instances of unethical behavior in research, and considered factors such as performance management culture, which included all aspects of university culture, existence of an incentive and reward system that has unwanted consequences, and new opportunities to use fraudulent and unethical methods that come from the developments of virtual space and free access to be effective in emergence of unethical behavior of researchers.[9]

Despite what has been said and without focusing on the reasons for the emergence of instances of unethical behavior of researchers in the field of research, first of all, it is necessary to identify the types and instances of unethical research behavior and practice of researchers who have experience in doing it, so that it is basis of future studies and evidence-based preventions. There was no study that examined the ethical performance of researchers in the field of research in Iran, and the sensitivity of the subject and the professional image of professors made the research question questionable, because of the importance and sensitivity of the subject, this study was conducted with the aim of surveying instances of unethical performance of faculty members in conducting and publishing research works, and the findings were presented based on the self-reports of professors and researchers.

Materials and Methods

Study design and setting

This study is of a cross-sectional type and was conducted on professors of medical sciences universities of the country according to the information of scientometric system of faculty members of the Ministry of Health, Treatment, and Medical Education[10] in August 2023.

The initial format of the checklist according to the regulations of ethics in the publication of research works, regulations of ethics in medical science research, regulations approved by the National Biomedical Ethics Committee and the opinion of some members of ethics committees in the themes of authorship conditions, conflict of interest, plagiarism, untrue statements, simultaneous posting and overlapping publication, and distortion and falsification of data were compiled in 28 cases and sent to ten professors of ethics committees and medical librarianship group to check the face and content validity. According to the opinions of the professors, 4 more items were added, and correction points were applied. The revised checklist was considered for final implementation after the approval of two ethics professors.

Considering the sufficiency of 100 samples in descriptive studies[11] and considering the sensitivity of the issue and the reduced probability of cooperation in answering the items in the checklist, a double primary sample, i.e., 200 people, was considered. To choose the majors without judging, groups or universities, faculty members were selected from the scientometric system by systematic random sampling. According to the formula, the total number of professors who were 22,245 in the scientometric system was divided by 200 (the number of samples taking into account the possibility of attrition), and the number 111 was gained. Using the random number generation system https://kitset.ir/numbers/random, the first number was considered 78 and selection continued systematically until 200 people were completed. Then, the selected professors were contacted through the email address of the system, and although explaining the purpose of the study and required ethical considerations, cooperation was requested. More than a third answered positively; therefore, 200 ones were selected and again by randomly selecting the number 75, and in these two stages, a total of 100 ones were willing to cooperate.

After completing the checklists, the data were entered into the SPSS 21 software and described with frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation statistics and analyzed using Student’s t-test and analysis of variance.

Ethical consideration

The researchers were assured that their answers will remain confidential with the researcher, and the general results will be reported without revealing any identifying information. However, if they did not want to use their answers in the study, they could withdraw from the study according to their request. In this study, such a request was not received from the respondents.

Results

According to the descriptive findings, 61.53% of the respondent researchers were female and 37.36% were male, 79.77% had specialized doctorate, the rest had master’s degree and specialized doctorate in the same proportion and in terms of scientific rank, 35.16% were instructors, 23.07% assistant professors, 28.57% associate professors, and 13.18% professors.

Other findings showed that there is not a significant difference in the average of nonobservance of instances of ethical behavior of researchers in conducting and publishing research works, between female researchers (5.7 ± 5.36) and male researchers (6.58 ± 5.64), also among researchers with scientific ranks of instructor (6.12 ± 6.41), assistant professor (4.9 ± 5.68), associate professor (5.66 ± 3.71), and professor (8.50 ± 5.07); however, according to the educational level, including master’s degree (11.2 ± 8.9), professional doctorate (5.11 ± 4.20), and specialized doctorate (9 ± 7.32), there was a significant difference (0.001, 7/12).

Discussion

According to the findings of Table 1, most faculty members stated the instances of unethical behavior of researchers in conducting and publishing research works in the order of priority as follows: “There have times when someone else submitted the article instead of me, who was the responsible author, or I did it instead of the responsible author,” “Once I had to add the name of a person who did not have the authorship conditions to the group of authors,” “Sometimes, to promote the rank of a research center, university or institution, without being a member, I mentioned its name in my organizational affiliation,” and “There have been cases where I knew the author of the article or design that was sent to me anonymously for judging, but I did not report it to the relevant field.”

Table 1 Relative frequency of researchers’ answers regarding instances of unethical behavior of researchers in conducting and publishing research works

Instances of unethical behavior of researchers in conducting and publishing research works	Yes	No	I do not remember	
1. I once had to add the name of a person who did not qualify as a writer to the group of writers.	53 (58.24)	38 (41.57)		
2. There was a time when I could not put the name of a person who qualified as a writer in the group of writers.	13 (14.28)	72 (79.22)	6 (6.59)	
3. I agree to have my name included in an article or project where I have not been asked to participate in a significant or specific activity.	26 (28.57)	61 (67.03)	4 (4.39)	
4. Sometimes, to promote the rank of a research center, university, or institution, without being a member, I mentioned its name in my organizational affiliation.	34 (37.36)	61 (67.03)	6 (6.59)	
5. There have been cases where I knew the author of the article or design that was sent to me anonymously for judging, but I did not report it to the relevant field.	34 (37.36)	46 (50.54)	11 (12.08)	
6. It happened that because of respect or personal status, I judge or score his/her work with connivance.	20 (21.97)	66 (72.52)	5 (5.49)	
7. There have been circumstances in which I have changed my organizational affiliation to enjoy benefits or gain support.	8 (8.79)	82 (90.10)	1 (1.09)	
8. I ordered the reviewer to judge my article or design faster or with tolerance.	24 (26.37)	65 (71.42)	2 (2.19)	
9. Sometimes I have used materials or information in my scientific text without citing and referencing.	10 (10.98)	75 (82.41)	6 (6.59)	
10. There have been times when I have translated the result of the book, measurement tool, or scientific achievement without the permission of the author.	24 (26.37)	65 (71.42)	2 (2.19)	
11. I have used my previously published references without reference or citation to a significant extent in my new scientific texts.	6 (6.59)	84 (92.30)	1 (1.09)	
12. I have used some parts of other people’s articles or designs that were sent to me for judging, such as text, tables, references, etc.	8 (8.79)	80 (87.91)	3 (3.29)	
13. In some research outputs, I stated that we had completed the informed consent form without the form being completed.	18 (19.78)	73 (80.21)		
14. In some cases, we reported the sampling method or the number of sampled people in the scientific output, different from the reality.	6 (6.59)	79 (86.81)	6 (6.59)	
15. In the past, we promised the participants that we would provide them with their results or provide a service, but we did not do it.	20 (21.97)	64 (70.32)	7 (7.69)	
16. There has been times when someone else submitted the article instead of me, who is the responsible author, or I do this instead of the responsible author.	56 (61.53)	33 (36.26)	2 (2.19)	
17. Basically, I do not answer the questions of the readers of my article who correspond with my email as the responsible author.	2 (2.19)	80 (87.91)	9 (9.89)	
18. Sometimes, after submitting the article to the journal, I inform other authors that the article has been completed and submitted in their name.	33 (36.26)	52 (57.14)	6 (6.59)	
19. Sometimes, as necessary, I signed and sent the commitment form on behalf of others without their knowledge.	18 (19.78)	70 (76.92)	3 (3.29)	
20. Sometimes, I judged an article or project that was clearly not in my field of expertise.	24 (26.37)	64 (70.32)	3 (3.29)	
21. I published similar articles that should have been published in one work.	16 (17.58)	73 (80.21)	2 (2.19)	
22. There have been times when I publish the result of each common phase of a research in an independent article, although it was perfectly publishable in one article.	20 (21.97)	64 (70.32)	7 (7.69)	
23. In recent years, I have published an article in more than one journal or in two languages without notifying the editors concerned.	2 (2.19)	89 (97.80)		
24. To save time, I have submitted my manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.	10 (10.98)	77 (84.61)	4 (4.39)	
25. Sometimes, I have omitted to report results that were inconsistent with the evidence or nonsignificant in my study.	4 (4.39)	85 (93.40)	2 (2.19)	
26. Sometimes, I have tried to report a more expected result by trying different analysis methods.	15 (16.48)	72 (79.12)	7 (7.69)	
27. Sometimes, focusing more or less on some findings, I have deliberately made certain results bold or light.	12 (13.18)	72 (79.12)	7 (7.69)	
28. I have participated in a research group where we worked on unreal events and reported them.	4 (4.39)	87 (95.60)	2 (2.19)	
29. There have been times when to make it possible to use the data better; we completed some incomplete cases ourselves.	16 (17.58)	73 (80.21)		
30. Sometimes, my judgment became biased because of exaggerating or minimizing some problems in an article, design, or book.	10 (10.98)	72 (79.12)	9 (9.89)	
31. Sometimes, I had to entrust or order the writing of my essay or plan to another person.	12 (13.18)	79 (86.81)		
32. Sometimes, I handed over the arbitration cases that were sent to me to another person without the sender’s knowledge.	4 (4.39)	85 (93.40)	2 (2.19)	

The content of some instances, according to the laws of the field of ethics and educational guidelines, and regarding time limits and the level of awareness and behavioral characteristics of the researchers, are sometimes such that they provide the conditions to distance from some ethical considerations. For example, most of the professors leave submitting to their students since they are busy and because of nonspecialization of the process of submitting articles in journals, sometimes frequency of submission times and the need to change the structure of the manuscript each time according to the guidelines of the authors of the journals; although according to the educational regulations, the supervisor is the correspondence party and must submit the article, they do not allocate time for that. Or if an influential author is placed in the research team as the corresponding author; sometimes, the task is assigned to a less influential author and it is actually done faster.

There are other instances of unethical practice in the field of research in form of introducing a guest author in an article, which is performed for various reasons or excuses, such as facilitating the publication of the article or advancing the work process, considering an influential person or obtaining his/her consent to enjoy any facilitation, gaining attention or appreciation from a person who has performed or is going to do something for the researcher, the intention of helping some people who need a document for progress or untangling an issue, or support from friends and family in this way, writing each other’s names in the output to increase the quantity and cases like these are among the most common reasons why professors, at the request of the main researcher or an influential author, enter the name of a person or people as a guest or with the least function in the article, and they benefit advantages from what they have not done. In addition to personal benefit, there is a possibility of forming assignments or unfair behavior and losing the right of researchers who are measured only by their actual performance.

Regarding mentioning organizational affiliation without organizational membership, the quantifier rules that are developed to evaluate the centers in a competitive environment, lead the researchers who are the beneficiaries of the centers themselves, or are encouraged by the beneficiaries to register unrealistic affiliations. The lack of qualitative, deep and continuous monitoring is a factor in the continuation of such actions, and its consequence is unrealistic result of performance and obtaining unfair resources or benefits, which are not used properly, and its results will not be in line with the policies of effectiveness and problem-solving.

Considering some other reported instances of unethical research practices, such as observing the author’s anonymity for the reviewer and vice versa in double-blind journals, which have been less informed and focused in the areas of ethics, researchers can basically think that it is not an important incident and the intention is not to harm, whereas researchers are not aware that conscious bias can be controlled to some extent, but the contribution of the unconscious part of biased behavior and its negative effects are not obvious, and on this basis, researchers generally refrain from reporting it due to considering it less important, or wanting to be curious about the authors.

By examining other instances of unethical research practice, other cases with less frequency and possibly more caution were introduced by the researchers because of the sensitivity of the subject, including the history of judging with connivance and bias, ordering to facilitate the pursuit of one’s own research in the related field, using references and documents of others without permission, not fulfilling the promises made to the study target community, trying to quantify and increase outputs, driving data to expected results and manipulation to achieve a particular answer or interpretation and some similar cases. Perhaps, the researchers think that these orientations do not have a significant effect on changing the direction of research or do not cause special problems, or relying on justifications such as the unfairness of the evaluation process and promotion laws and the ineffectiveness of some educational policies and laws, they excuse their mistake or say I have the right to act in a different way to achieve my personal or institutional needs. However, what is ignored is the damage that directly or indirectly harms the society. A significant loss in terms of national and international trust, in terms of the weakening of the role of research in solving the problems of the country and human society, weakening the religious teachings and culture, as well as emergence of political and management problems caused by the mutual distrust of managers and policymakers are brought that adversely affects the researchers’ own belief about the efficiency of their research activities.

Other results showed that there is no significant difference between male and female professors as well as professors at different academic levels in the average of cases of unethical behavior in the field of research, although the average score of researchers at the rank of professor was higher. The higher score may somehow be consistent with the justification that these professors at the highest level of science, credit and honor themselves, somehow do not worry about the consequences or vulnerability. They may consider their performance to be the result of experience and exempt from wrongdoing.

Other results indicated that researchers in the educational level of master’s degree and specialized doctorate, respectively, reported more instances of unethical behavior in the field of research than professional doctorate students. Perhaps, it can be interpreted that the researchers of the master’s level include educators who are not in the competition for promotion in terms of scientific rank at the current level, and they may have less concern or even less knowledge about their scientific records and research performance. Based on this, they may follow research guidelines and ethical rules governing it less. Researchers with a specialized doctorate degree mostly include doctors who have continued their education in one of the specialized fields. First of all, they consider themselves therapists. They spend more time and energy on treatment and at the office and hospital. They follow research concerns, tasks, or interests in the margin in a more limited time and potential, and it seems that they do not focus on the rules and guidelines of the research field if this field requires.

The sensitivity of the subject to express the professors’ experience of their ethical behavior in the field of research led to the prolongation of the subject and the second sampling, which finally involved 100 faculty members.

In the description of the data, only a picture of this community was presented, without the intention of generalization; however, the manuscript served its purpose of providing a reminder and showing the existing reality, although a modified extent was reported from the researchers’ area.

Conclusion

According to the general findings of the study, various instances of unethical behavior of researchers in the field of research were reported by the members of the faculty of the Ministry of Health in different types and with different frequencies. It should be noted that because of the sensitivity of the issue and the reluctance of the respondents to self-disclose in this field, the reported statistics can be considered as minimums, and it can be assumed that in the real world, more instances are possible; However, to reduce the difficulty of responding to the instances, the I do not remember option along with the yes and no options were considered to be an euphemism for direct response and to reduce noncooperation or dishonesty; or in case of real forgetting, it is possible to choose the correct answer.

However, the findings of the study indicate that regardless of the reasons, the researchers deliberately referred to some instances of unethical practice in the field of research, and this has clearly negative consequences such as encountering unrealistic findings and subsequent applications, national and international notoriety and low credibility, the impossibility of distinguishing valid results and findings from the discredit ones, achieving unfair and unworthy promotion and attribution or opportunities, as well as damaging opportunities and losing accomplishment. These consequences are so important that it is necessary to review the evaluation policies and rules. The findings of this study can be used for the academic system of the country, the fields of research and ethics, as well as the entire society of the audience of research achievements.

Financial support and sponsorship

This study was conducted with the scientific code 140269 and the ethical code IR.ARI.MUI.REC.1402.090 with the support of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank all the faculty members who, despite the sensitivity of the subject, trusted the researchers and cooperated to answer the checklist. We are also grateful to the professors and members of the ethics committees who assisted in the evaluation and approval of the checklist.
==== Refs
References

1. Maharati Y Broumand E Laghmani H Ethics in scientific research process J Ethics Sci Technol 2015 9 1 10
2. Khaleghi N Ethics of research in the field of social sciences Q J Ethics Behav Sci 2008 3 84
3. Busher HU Ethics of Educational Research: An Agenda for Discussion School of Education, University of Leicester 2005 Available from: http: www.aub.edu.lb
4. Khenifar H Bordbar H Foroughi Qomi F Explained ethics and cultural research J Moral Knowledge 2012 2 85 104
5. Shamoo AD David BR Responsible Conduct of Research London Oxford University Press 2009 8 26
6. Stommel W de Rijk L Ethical approval: None sought. How discourse analysts report ethical issues around publicly available online data Res Ethics 2021 17 275 97
7. El Kadiri Boutchich D Impact of ethics on research productivity in higher education Int J Ethics Educ 2021 6 253 71
8. Paruzel-Czachura M Baran L Spendel Z Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research Res Ethics 2020 17 375 97
9. Pillay DG Qhobela M Research ethics and integrity challenges require innovative approaches South Afr J Sci 2019 115 1 3
10. Available from: https://isid.research.ac.ir
11. Delavar A Research Method in Psychology and Educational Sciences Tehran Arasbaran Publishing 2021
