Belay Hailu Habtamu, Teka Wolde Telahun, Yirsaw Wubete Betselot, Ali Joseph, Tsegaye Bitew Sintayehu
Ethiopian Defense University, College of Health Sciences, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
Addis Ababa University College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
F1000Res. 2025 Feb 20;14:111. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.159997.2. eCollection 2025.
Research integrity, essential for ethical scientific research, has been inadequately addressed in Ethiopia, resulting in gaps in addressing misconduct like plagiarism, falsification and fabrication. The aim of this study was to assess the magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia.
An institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted on a random sample of researchers. Data were collected via a self-administered, structured questionnaire, which was adapted from a similar study. The collected data were analysed using descriptive, bivariate, and multivariable logistic regression.
A total of 244 researchers participated in the study, resulting in an 82% response rate. In our study, 37.7% of participants reported engaging in at least one form of misconduct, 95% CI [31.6%, 44.1%]. Authorship misconduct was the most common form of self-reported misconduct (47.5%), 95% CI [41.1%, 54.0%], followed by fabrication and falsification (40.6%), 95% CI [34.4%, 47.0%]. Publication pressure was significantly associated with research misconduct (AOR = 3.18; 95% CI: [1.02, 9.95]).
This study highlights the prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices among academic researchers, with authorship misconduct, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism being the most commonly reported types. Attitudes toward research misconduct and self-reported involvement were influenced by academic position, research experience, and publication pressure, with junior researchers being more likely to report engaging in misbehavior. While ethics training has occasionally been associated with reduced rates of research misconduct, its effectiveness remains uncertain, as institutional culture, supervision, and mentorship may play a more significant role. Addressing research misconduct requires a comprehensive approach that extends beyond ethical instruction, incorporating targeted support for early-career researchers, open dialogue, and institutional policy reforms.
研究诚信是符合伦理的科学研究的关键要素，但在埃塞俄比亚却未得到充分关注，导致在处理诸如抄袭、伪造和编造等不当行为方面存在差距。本研究旨在评估埃塞俄比亚一所公立大学研究不当行为的严重程度及其相关因素。
对研究人员进行基于机构的横断面随机抽样研究。通过一份自填式结构化问卷收集数据，该问卷改编自一项类似研究。对收集到的数据进行描述性、双变量和多变量逻辑回归分析。
共有244名研究人员参与了该研究，回复率为82%。在我们的研究中，37.7%的参与者报告至少参与了一种形式的不当行为，95%置信区间为[31.6%，44.1%]。署名不当行为是自我报告的最常见的不当行为形式（47.5%），95%置信区间为[41.1%，54.0%]，其次是伪造和编造（40.6%），95%置信区间为[34.4%，47.0%]。发表压力与研究不当行为显著相关（调整后比值比=3.18；95%置信区间：[1.02，9.95]）。
本研究凸显了学术研究人员中研究不当行为和有问题的研究行为的普遍性，署名不当行为、伪造、编造和抄袭是最常报告的类型。对研究不当行为的态度和自我报告的参与情况受到学术职位、研究经验和发表压力的影响，初级研究人员更有可能报告有不当行为。虽然伦理培训偶尔与研究不当行为发生率的降低有关，但其有效性仍不确定，因为机构文化、监督和指导可能发挥更重要的作用。解决研究不当行为需要一种全面的方法，这种方法要超越伦理指导，包括对早期职业研究人员的针对性支持、开放对话和机构政策改革。
