Indirect measurement of research misconduct among Iranian postgraduate students of medical sciences using the unmatched count technique

BACKGROUND: Research misconduct poses a serious threat to academic integrity, particularly in medical sciences. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of various forms of research misconduct include plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, authorship misconduct, salami slicing, and purchasing research work among postgraduate students in Iranian medical universities using the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT). METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among postgraduate students from multiple Iranian medical universities using a double-list version of the unmatched count technique (UCT). The questionnaire was administered in two sequential waves, with approximately half of participants completing List A and the remaining participants completing List B, ensuring that each respondent received only one list version. For each research misconduct behavior, prevalence was estimated by calculating the mean difference in endorsement counts between lists containing the sensitive item and corresponding control lists with only non-sensitive items. In the double-list design, prevalence estimates were computed separately for List A and List B, with sensitive items counterbalanced across list positions to control for order effects. The final prevalence was calculated as the average of the two list-specific estimates, improving precision and reducing list-order bias. RESULTS: The most commonly reported misconduct was using others' ideas or phrases without proper citation (43%), followed by dishonest result reporting (38%), data fabrication or deletion (34%), and authorship misrepresentation (34%). Salami slicing was reported by 26%, and 20% admitted to purchasing parts or all of a research project. The UCT survey tool demonstrated acceptable reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from 0.64 to 0.84. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate a troubling level of research misconduct among postgraduatestudents in Iran's medical sciences universities. This highlights the need for effective ethics training, stronger academic integrity policies, and enforceable institutional mechanisms to promote responsible research conduct and protect the future credibility of medical professionals.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Research Integrity and Peer Review
Published
2026-06-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00202-5
Primary Topic
Academic integrity and plagiarism
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Indirect measurement of research misconduct among Iranian postgraduate students of medical sciences using the unmatched count technique

Abouzar Raeisvandi, Masoumeh Javaheri, fariba fatehi, Tina Lari et al.
Research Integrity and Peer Review
Academic integrity and plagiarism
article

Indirect measurement of research misconduct among Iranian postgraduate students of medical sciences using the unmatched count technique

Abouzar Raeisvandi, Masoumeh Javaheri, fariba fatehi, Tina Lari, Sanaz Omidi, Younes Mohammadi, Marzieh Otogara, Hanieh Moradi, Fatemeh Ebrahimi
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Research misconduct poses a serious threat to academic integrity, particularly in medical sciences. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of various forms of research misconduct include plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, authorship misconduct, salami slicing, and purchasing research work among postgraduate students in Iranian medical universities using the Unmatched Count Technique (UCT). METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among postgraduate students from multiple Iranian medical universities using a double-list version of the unmatched count technique (UCT). The questionnaire was administered in two sequential waves, with approximately half of participants completing List A and the remaining participants completing List B, ensuring that each respondent received only one list version. For each research misconduct behavior, prevalence was estimated by calculating the mean difference in endorsement counts between lists containing the sensitive item and corresponding control lists with only non-sensitive items. In the double-list design, prevalence estimates were computed separately for List A and List B, with sensitive items counterbalanced across list positions to control for order effects. The final prevalence was calculated as the average of the two list-specific estimates, improving precision and reducing list-order bias. RESULTS: The most commonly reported misconduct was using others' ideas or phrases without proper citation (43%), followed by dishonest result reporting (38%), data fabrication or deletion (34%), and authorship misrepresentation (34%). Salami slicing was reported by 26%, and 20% admitted to purchasing parts or all of a research project. The UCT survey tool demonstrated acceptable reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from 0.64 to 0.84. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate a troubling level of research misconduct among postgraduatestudents in Iran's medical sciences universities. This highlights the need for effective ethics training, stronger academic integrity policies, and enforceable institutional mechanisms to promote responsible research conduct and protect the future credibility of medical professionals.

Research Integrity and Peer ReviewVol. 11(1)
Hamedan University of Medical Sciences (IR), Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (IR), Iran University of Medical Sciences (IR), Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences (IR), Qazvin University of Medical Sciences (IR)
Hamadan University of Medical Sciences
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Academic integrity and plagiarism
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.