Scientific misconduct in health research: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To synthesize the self-reported prevalence of scientific misconduct in health-related research through a systematic review and meta-analysis, including a broader range of unethical practices than previous investigations. Methods A systematic search was conducted across six electronic databases and three sources of gray literature. Observational studies reporting the prevalence of scientific misconduct among researchers, students, or health professionals were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. Results Twenty-nine studies were included, totaling 17,919 analyzed responses. The most prevalent form of misconduct was honorary authorship (32%; 95% CI: 21%–44%), followed by plagiarism (28%; 95% CI: 12%–47%), data falsification (12%; 95% CI: 6%–19%), data fabrication (11%; 95% CI: 6%–19%), and methodological manipulation (4%; 95% CI: 2%–7%). High heterogeneity was observed for most outcomes (I 2 ≥ 95%), except for methodological manipulation (I 2 = 62%). No evidence of publication bias was found (p > 0.05). Conclusion Scientific misconduct remains a widespread issue in health research. The findings underscore the need for institutional policies that promote research integrity, transparent authorship criteria, and ethical training. Despite the potential for underreporting due to self-reported data, the results provide an important overview of the extent and types of misconduct present in the current scientific practice.