Research Integrity in a Developing Country: Review and Analysis (Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities)

IDL - International Digital Library Of
Technology & Research
Volume 1, Issue 5, May 2017 Available at: www.dbpublications.org
International e-Journal For Management And Research-2017
IDL - International Digital Library 1 | P a g e Copyright@IDL-2017
Research Integrity in a Developing Country:
Review and Analysis
(Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities)
By:
Rakib Ahmed
Senior Lecturer, Eastern University, Bangladesh
Email: rakibcau@yahoo.com
Abstract:
Research integrity, research misconduct, ethics
in research is profound terms. Research integrity
is simply, justice and honesty in conducting
research where research misconduct is just
opposite including insufficient care for the
subject of research; breaches of confidentiality,
improprieties of publication involving conflict of
interest. It‘s harmful for society. If someone
involved embezzling, plagiarizing, stealing the
output of others, such as methodology, output,
data including unpublished is called violation of
academic or research ethics. This research paper
tried to find out the core concepts of research,
integrity, misconduct, ethics, and issues related
to research integrity in a developing country like
Bangladesh. The broad objective of the study
was to review and analyze the challenges and
opportunities of research integrity in a
developing country like Bangladesh. It‘s an
exploratory and qualitative research based on
mainly secondary sources of data. Various
literatures have been reviewed for the desired
data. Promoting research integrity in a
developing country like Bangladesh requires a
greater understanding. There is a dearth of
empirical research addressing issues related to
research integrity and misconduct in science,
business, environment etc. This paper found
many challenges in this regard and also a great
opportunity to overcome those. More research
on these issues might be supported not only to
provide useful guidance to researchers, policy
makers but also to stimulate a critical mass of
scholars to develop research on research
integrity as a legitimate field of scientific
inquiry.
Keywords: Research integrity, Research
misconduct, Ethics, Developing country,
Bangladesh.
Classification: Research Paper
1. INTRODUCTION
Research, by its very nature, is founded on
honesty and competition, on data that is real, yet
selective, and on an open critique of conceptual
and methodological frameworks among peers
but increasingly also other societal actors.
Research Integrity (RI) has long been considered

to be a part of science governance as opposed to
requiring statutory legislation, since codes of
conduct and recommendations for Good
Research Practice (GRP) are dependent on
understanding and upholding core research
values. On the other hand, there are situations
where serious deviations from GRP constitute a
statutory offence, and where the case at hand is
subject to the laws of the land.
Promoting research integrity in a developing
country like Bangladesh requires a greater
understanding than we now have of the factors
that influence the full range of research conduct.
There is a dearth of empirical research
addressing issues related to research integrity
and misconduct in science. It is critical,
therefore, that more research on these issues be
supported, not only to provide useful guidance
to researchers and to the formulation of
appropriately measured policy, but also to
stimulate a critical mass of scholars to develop
research on research integrity as a legitimate
field of scientific inquiry. Such research must
employ rigorous research designs and methods
of evaluation.
In this research paper it is tried to find out the
core concepts of research, integrity, misconduct,
ethics, and issues related to research integrity in
a developing country like Bangladesh. Here it‘s
also tried to determine the potential challenges
and opportunities of research integrity in a
developing country.
2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The broad objective of the study is to review and
analyze the challenges and opportunities of
research integrity in a developing country like
Bangladesh.
The specific objectives are:
 To review and sort out the issues of
research misconduct and integrity in a
developing country like Bangladesh.
 To determine and evaluate the
challenges and opportunities of research
integrity in a developing country like
Bangladesh.
 To recommend some measure to
overcome such challenges.
3. CORE CONCEPTS OF RESEARCH
3.1 Research Integrity
Research integrity is simply, justice and honesty
in proposing, conducting, and reporting research
or doing it right and telling the truth about what
you did. In other words, it means that one
conducts one‘s research as carefully as one can
and present the results as honestly as one can.
Integrity in research embraces the aspirational
standard of scientific conduct rather than simply
the avoidance of questionable practices (Swazey
1993: 202; King and Anderson, 1999:34;
Steneck, 2003:401; Iverson and Siang, 2003:64;
Whitbeck, 2004:85).
3.2 Academic or Research Misconduct
The term ‗research misconduct‘ is meant to
embrace many things, including insufficient care
for the people, animals or objects that are the
subject of or participants in research; breaches of
confidentiality, violation of protocols,
carelessness of the kind that leads to gross error
and improprieties of publication involving
conflict of interest or appropriation of ideas.
Research misconduct is harmful for knowledge.
It could mislead other researchers, it may
threaten individuals or society – for instance if it
becomes the basis for unsafe drugs or unwise
legislation – and, by subverting the public‘s

trust, it could lead to a disregard for or
undesirable restrictions being imposed on
research. Research misconduct can appear in
many guises:
 Fabrication involves making up results
and recording them as if they were real;
 Falsification involves manipulating
research processes or changing or
omitting data;
 Plagiarism is the appropriation of other
people‘s material without giving proper
credit;
 Other forms of misconduct include
failure to meet clear ethical and legal
requirements such as misrepresentation
of interests, breach of confidentiality,
lack of informed consent and abuse of
research subjects or materials.
Misconduct also includes improper
dealing with infringements, such as
attempts to cover up misconduct and
reprisals on whistleblowers;
 Minor misdemeanors may not lead to
formal investigations, but are just as
damaging given their probable
frequency, and should be corrected by
teachers and mentors.
3.3 Ethics in Research
If someone involved to embezzle, plagiarize,
steal the output of others, such as the material,
methodology, output, report, program and data
including unpublished is called violation of
academic or research ethics. It also include not
only revising and faking the research data (e.g.
experiment and survey data, and statistic results)
but also hiding the negative data to pretend to be
the innovation output. Using the output
accomplished by the research team in own
outputs without indicating that also violation of
ethics in research. Sending one manuscript to
different journals at the same time and/ or other
misconducts in research activities also
considered as ethics violation. It is enormous
imperative to ensure the ethics in the research.
4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This is very significant paper for the students
and the teachers as well as the researchers.
Because this paper tried to explain the basic
issues related to the research integrity. Not only
that there was an attempt to determine and
explain the potential challenges and
opportunities of research integrity in a
developing country. By reading this paper one
may learn about what is research, what is
integrity in research, what is research
misconduct and their impact on our life. One can
be able to measure the barriers and prospects of
integrity in research.
5. LITERATURE REVIEW OF THE
STUDY
Bolton (2002: 67), defines research integrity as:
...‖ the process o f doing and reporting science
in accordance with accepted practices in their
field. This includes adherence to the prin cip les
and practice s o f scientific standards, education
and mentoring, unbiased peer and expert review
and communication o f results to the scientific
community”. This definition of research
integrity seems to be aligned with our belief that
not only the researcher, but also the environment
and the whole research community is
responsible for the promotion of research
integrity.
The most basic tenets of research integrity are:
trustworthiness and credibility of the findings.
(Swazey, 1993: 2002; King, and Anderson 1999:
37). Research integrity should be an ethic that is
transmitted down the generational tree,
nourished and sustained through individual self-
reflection and a continuous bi-directional

vertical and horizontal communication among
members of the scientific community (Bolton,
2002:78). It should be validated through a
continuous dialogue with society because the
society is a major stakeholder in addressing the
issues of research integrity. The aim of research
ethics is to protect members of society as well as
to protect the integrity of science itself.
According to the Natal Academic Press (1999),
promotion of integrity in the research
environment is about institutional culture and
behavior, as well as the professional
performance of individuals. We argue and
propose that research integrity be viewed
positively, from an educational or
developmental perspective rather than from a
regulatory perspective. We believe that only
positive messages will assist researchers in their
endeavour to maintain research integrity all the
time.
Bolton, (2002: 101) proposes the following
aspects of integrity during the conduct of
research. These are grouped together as follows:
• Childhood socialization. As young children we
acquire a moral sense of right and wrong. It is
expected that as professionals we will accept the
professional standards about data falsification,
fabrication and plagiarism.
• Scientific socialization. Student‘s are
socialized through education and training of
acceptable standards of conducting research.
• Collegial and professional norms. This
involves mentoring of junior researchers and
postgraduate students.
• Workplace norms, values and incentives. The
workplace ‗culture‖ will influence the attitude
and the ways in which the rules and standards
about research integrity are managed (Bolton,
2002:19)
We support Bolton on these aspects. We further
argue that the scientific community is another
aspect that can play a crucial role in research
integrity promotion. We believe that the concept
‗scientific community‘ needs further exploration
as well, since scientific ethics forms the basis of
research integrity or misconduct.
Research misconduct is concerned with
fabricating, falsifying, plagiarizing, or any other
practices that seriously deviate from standard
acceptable within the scholarly scientific
community in proposing, conducting and
reporting research (University of California, Los
Angeles Policy 993,1998). The White House
Office of Science and Technology (OSTP),
defined misconduct as: ―fabrication, falsification
or plagiarism in proposing performing or
reviewing research or in reporting research
results”. The policy also states that findings of
misconduct require that there be significant
departure from acceptable practice. It also states
that allegations be proven by a preponderance of
evidence.
It also makes reporting of misconduct to be the
primary responsibility of the institution where
research is conducted (Guenin 1999:340). Most
definitions on misconduct highlight the
following errors:
• Fabrication: This is defined as making up
results and recording and reporting them with a
deliberate intent to deceive thus disregarding the
accepted scientific practice. It also involves
changing (manipulating) data or experiments or
the conditions to make results ―fit‖ the
hypothesis (Guenin: 1999:342). Other
temptations in research may be failure to report
research findings that contradict those being
reported and failure to report personal interest

that the researcher may have in the outcome of
the research.
• Falsification: Manipulating research materials,
equipment, or process or changing or omitting
data or results such that the research is not
accurately represented in the research record
(Guenin: 1999:342).
• Plagiarism: Appropriation of another person‘s
ideas, processes, results or words without giving
appropriate credit, including those obtained from
confidential review of others‘ research proposals
and manuscripts. Researchers may also steal
data from students, colleagues, and proteges.
Plagiarism includes stealing own work or failure
to reference own prior work (King and
Anderson, 1999; Swazey, 1993).
In our opinions and those of King and Anderson
(1999); Swazey (1993); UCLA Policy (1998),
research misconduct does not include honest
error or difference of opinion or different
interpretation of data.
6. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
6.1 Type and Nature of Research: This is an
exploratory research. By nature it‘s treated as
qualitative research.
6.2 Sources of Data: Here only secondary
sources of data have been used. No primary data
have been used for this study.
6.3 Data Process and Analysis: Since this is a
qualitative and exploratory research there is no
statistical software been used. For data
processing and arranging Microsoft word has
been used.
6.4 Limitations of the Study: This is basically
an essay type paper. Although it is an essay type
paper here it‘s tried to use as much as authentic
data possible. Every data and information have
been tried to collect from only internet based
various sources. However, there is no observed
data through primary survey.
7. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF THE
FINDINGS
The discussion and analysis of the research
findings are exhibited below.
7.1 Potential Approaches to Promote
Research Integrity
To promote integrity in research we should use
and follow some necessary initiatives or
approaches. The ESF MO Forum undertook in
2010 a survey of attempts to promote GRP that
found a number of successful approaches:
 Producing and disseminating articles,
books, brochures on research integrity;
 Producing and promoting guidelines on
good research practice and on
investigations of allegations of research
misconduct;
 Establishing websites and portals as
resources for further study and teaching;
 Holding workshops, conferences,
seminars, etc. on research integrity at
the national or institutional level in
order to launch debates;
 Establishing an adequate institutional
framework, including ethical
committees, research integrity bureaus
at the institutional and national level);
 Introducing training programmes for
advanced PhD students and other staff;
 Gathering of evidence on best practice
elsewhere (surveys, etc.);

 Surveys to monitor the implementation
of GRP and training programmes.
7.2 Research Misconduct and Integrity Issues
in a developing country like Bangladesh
Progress in science & technology and other
aspects have not come without growing pains.
Like the U.S., Australia, Canada, China and
many other countries, Bangladesh has had its
share of research misconduct scandals. In the
early 1990s, some scholars began to express
concerns about deviations from academic norms
in universities in Bangladesh. By the late 1990s,
research journals in Bangladesh became alarmed
about ethical problems with published research,
especially plagiarism. In 1996, several cases of
copying large portions of published papers drew
the attention of scientists and the national
media. In a developing country, there are some
wholesale plagiarism is available who encourage
to republishing someone else‘s article under a
different name. To prevent those issues need to
develop a code of conduct or guideline for
research or research approach to combat
plagiarism and other types of misconduct. The
code also included some rules to protect the
rights of authors.
Of course, the situation in most settings is more
complex, typically, more than one approach is
adopted across institutions and national bodies at
the same time, as the same actors perform in
different functions. The differing size of
countries will also have implications for the
approaches adopted. It may be easier or more
accepted to have a ‗national system‘ of research
integrity governance in smaller countries e.g.
Bangladesh, whereas in bigger countries with
very large and powerful institutions and
universities it may be more difficult to reach
consensus about appropriate approaches to
research integrity governance. Yet, the typology
does serve to illustrate the existing heterogeneity
of approaches in both academic and government
systems across the continent and beyond, and
the need for measures to ensure compatibility.
7.3 Challenges or Barriers of Research
Integrity in a Developing Country like
Bangladesh
The challenge in developing a framework for
research integrity governance is that it must be
both compatible with diverse legal national
contexts, translating globally accepted principles
into national policy and practice, and correspond
to the fundamental ethical guidelines that
scientists and scholars set for themselves. In
what follows, the focus will be on the challenges
presented by the task of reconciling fundamental
(and global) principles with nationally
applicable legal and institutional contexts. The
guiding thought is to enable flexibility and
compatibility of structures in different settings
without making compromises with regard to the
principles to be upheld.
Promoting the integrity of science systems may
face many fundamentally different challenges in
developing countries, and in countries in
transition or emerging economies (ESF/ORI
Science Policy Briefing 30 (2007). Yet, given
the increasingly close research collaboration
between all these different classes of science
systems, there is scope and need to enhance all
existing systems: the first step implies
identifying and adopting the core elements
already present, and which nations and
institutions should set as benchmarks for
aspirations to improve their current research
integrity governance structures.
7.3.1 Research Policy Development: Most of
the policies developed by research organizations
have focused on defining and investigating

misconduct. While misconduct is by far the most
important issue that needs to be addressed to
promote research integrity, other issues also
merit attention, such as conflicts of interest, data
sharing, authorship, and mentoring of students.
Though developing clear and effective policies
on research integrity might seem to be a simple
and straightforward task, often it is not. For
example, it took the U.S. government more than
ten years to finalize a uniform policy on research
misconduct, and there is considerable variation
in the conflict of interest policies adopted by
U.S. universities.
7.3.2 Ensure Accountability and
Transparency: It is very much difficult to
ensure accountability and transparency in
research if the researcher doesn‘t like to be.
Although government can develop a policy to
encourage integrity in research but
accountability is challenging issues. However,
government and other research authority should
develop some system e.g. rewards to encourage
and e.g. punishment to discourage them to be
accountable and transparent. Although it‘s
challenging but it could be make possible.
7.3.3 Setting and Maintaining National
Mandate: The experience of countries in which
a national oversight or governance structure has
been developed suggests that there is a need for
a clear and authoritative national statement to
underpin research integrity governance
structures. This can take the form of a charter or
of legislative support. In devising such a
mandate countries can draw on the experiences
of others which have already addressed this
element, such as Denmark and Norway. In
countries in which no national debates have been
held yet, the awareness raising processes
referred to in the work of WG1 might aim at
building alliances between the scientific
communities and the main authorities governing
the national science system.
7.3.4 Fair and Transparent Processes: It‘s a
challenge for making the process fair and
transparent. Processes advertised to denounce
and to deal with suspected cases of scientific
misconduct at both local and national level must
be fair and transparent. Otherwise there is a risk
that stakeholders will refrain from accepting the
authority of and cooperation with the relevant
institutional actors. It is critical to strive for a
balance between prevention and sanction.
7.3.5 Responsibility for Managing Processes:
It‘s the another challenging job is to assign the
responsibility for managing the process. Roles
and responsibilities for prevention, investigation
and imposition of sanctions need to be clearly
assigned at both local and/or national level.
7.3.6 Lack of University Oversight
Mechanisms for Dealing with Misconduct:
Basically, university plays an important role in
research aspect, especially in a developing
country. They provide reviewing mechanism for
dealing with research misconduct etc. But in our
country there is a lack of proper oversight or
reviewing mechanism for dealing with research
misconduct.
7.3.7 Pressure to Publish: Perhaps the most
difficult challenge any nation faces concerning
research integrity is cultivating a research
environment that encourages ethical behavior.
The research environment includes attitudes,
traditions, and norms that influence the practice
of science. The pressure to produce results has
played a significant role in misconduct problems
in the U.S., South Korea, Europe, China, and in
Bangladesh. In the U.S. and Europe, scientists
must produce results and publish in order to
obtain (or maintain) research funding. In
Bangladesh, performance in research (or lack
thereof) can impact many areas including salary,
promotion, and social benefits. Even graduate

students face the pressure to publish, since most
universities require that students publish articles
as a condition of receiving a PhD. Like China,
Bangladesh has taken some steps to reduce the
pressure to achieve results. Some universities
now emphasize the quality of published research
rather than the quantity of research in their
evaluations of faculty. This reform, though
helpful, can be difficult to achieve because there
is a strong tendency to measure scientific
performance in terms of the quantity of
publications or citation score.
7.3.8 Conflicts of Interest: It is also important
to address conflicts of interest pertaining to
funding and publication and other important
decisions to promote an ethical research
environment. U.S. granting agencies have
adopted rules to prevent personal relationships
between applicants and reviewers from biasing
the review process. In Bangladesh, personal
relationships have affected government
decisions, such as the review of research grants,
for many years. Bangladesh has made some
headway on this problem by taking steps to
promote fairness and transparency in hiring
decisions and peer review, but more work may
need to be done.
7.3.9 Protecting Whistle-Blowers: Protecting
whistle-blowers from retaliation is another
important challenge facing Bangladesh and
many other countries, including the U.S, China.
Countries with laws protecting whistle-blowers,
such as the U.S., the U.K., Canada, the
Netherlands and Germany, still have problems
with encouraging people to report misconduct
and other transgressions in research, because
people fear that they will face career-threatening
consequences of blowing the whistle, such as
being blackballed or developing a reputation as a
troublemaker. Many U.S. researchers avoid
reporting illegal or unethical activity because
they simply want to avoid the hassle of
testifying in a misconduct inquiry or
investigation. Additionally, some universities
have institutional norms that encourage people
to cover-up or ignore problems to avoid
embarrassing the institution. As a result, a large
percentage of misconduct that occurs in U.S.
research may not be reported. Like the U.S.,
China and other countries, Bangladesh has also
had some difficulties with encouraging whistle-
blowers to report violations of ethical or legal
rules. Lack of legal protections for whistle-
blowers is one reason why many misconduct
investigations in Bangladesh have been based on
anonymous tips.
7.3.10 Research Auditing: A step beyond
supporting whistle-blowing that institutions can
take is to routinely audit research data. Auditing
can be more effective at preventing and
detecting violations of ethical or legal rules than
whistle-blowing, because people often do not
report problems that they know about or
observe. Auditing can not only uncover major
problems, such as misconduct, but it can also
expose minor ones, such as errors and
irregularities in recording data. Auditing is a
common practice in research sponsored by
pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies,
because the companies want to produce data that
regulatory agencies will accept, and problems
with the data can cost companies time and
money. Auditing is less common in research that
is not supported by industry, because auditing
costs a significant amount of money, and
universities often cannot afford to pay people to
audit research. Also, academic researchers may
not want to share their research records with an
outside party.

7.4 Opportunities and scope of Research
Integrity in a Developing Country
In a developing country like Bangladesh only
problems, challenges, or barriers will be
available it‘s not true all time. There are some
potentials or opportunities also available in
regard to the research aspects. The following
potentials or opportunities might be come.
7.4.1 Promotion of Research on Research
Integrity: Prevention of research misconduct is
the ultimate goal. In developed country there are
lots of research works available of this topic but
in developing country like Bangladesh there are
not enough such research activities available.
But we have immense opportunities to do so.
Scholarly research is the tool for understanding
misconduct and improper research practices and
the reasons behind them. Coupled with this is
the need to encourage the publication of such
studies of both policy issues and scientific
behavior. Both research and its literature will
facilitate greater attention from relevant
stakeholders. To prevent research misconduct,
we need to know more about research integrity.
Funding bodies, politicians, academies,
universities, ESF, ENRIO, journal editors and
researchers themselves should all be involved in
promoting studies of research integrity. Many
countries may share common values, but local
culture and values should also be respected
when providing recommendations.
7.4.2 Open Communication: Open
communication is also essential for promoting
integrity in research. Openness plays a key role
in collaboration, publication, peer review,
criticism, replication, the evaluation of
government projects and industry activities, and
in making decisions about social issues, such as
global warming, preparing for natural disasters,
or food safety. Interference in scientific
communication—by the government or private
industry—can undermine the integrity of science
in many different ways. Restrictions on
communication may prevent researchers from
publishing important results, reporting illegal or
unethical activities, conducting some types of
controversial research, or engaging in debates
about ethical issues. Bangladesh, like China, has
taken some steps toward promoting openness in
scientific communication in recent years—the
internet has provided a useful outlet for
discussion and debate—but additional steps may
be necessary.
7.4.3 Open Government: Open government
also helps to promote research integrity because
it involves researchers, scientists and citizens in
the country‘s decision-making. Important
decisions about science, such as funding
priorities and research policies, as well as
decisions that are informed by science, such as
food and drug safety or environmental
protection, should be open for public comment
and review. Open government is necessary so
that researchers, scientists etc. can take part in
the decisions that can affect the country‘s
research agenda and the quality and integrity of
research. For example, if the government plans
to adopt a new policy concerning the use of
human subjects in research, scientists and
citizens should be informed about the policy and
should help to craft it. If the government is
considering a plan to shift resources toward an
expensive scientific project, such as building a
new supercollider, scientists and citizens also
need to take part in that decision.
It is sorry to say that, for many years,
Bangladesh government was far from open.
Important decisions were made in secret, and the
public had little input into government policies.
The government also has kept other countries
from learning about events taking place in
Bangladesh. Although Bangladesh government

has become much more open in recent years, it
can go further.
7.4.4 Formation of Research Association:
There is a great opportunity to form a strong
research association consist of government
body, university scholars and subject experts
from civil societies, who will create a research
policy, guideline, rules and regulations, manage
the oversight & reviewing system, control the
plagiarism, misconduct, data falsification etc.
7.4.5 Promote Academic Ethics: From our
school, college and university level we should
encourage our students to maintain academic
ethics. If we can lean them what is ethics,
integrity, misconduct, and its good side and bad
side as well as its punishment then we can say
our next generation must be aware of research
integrity. We can do it easily in our country.
7.4.6 Ensure that Procedures for
Investigation are Legally Robust: To prevent
research misconduct investigation procedures
must be legally robust. Every country should
have standardized procedures for reviewing the
research work. In Bangladesh there is lots of
scholars earned knowledge from developed
countries. Therefore, there is an opportunity to
utilize their expert knowledge to set and ensure
the procedures for investigating the research
misconduct etc.
7.4.7 Decide on levels of Appeal: There is no
opportunity for appeal for defense against
his/her claims. As in all legal and quasi-legal
proceedings, there should be an instance of
appeal. There is an opportunity to set
permissibility of appeals, the types of appeals,
for example concerning either the scientific or
the procedural elements of an investigation, and
the processes for appeal should be clearly stated
in any procedures. If it is established it give us a
transparent system in research aspect.
7.4.8 Creating and Using Anti-Plagiarism
Software: This is called age of science and
technology. We are growing fast in many
aspects. Our concern authority should highly
emphasize on the research investment. If we can
do that we may get high quality research and
thus development will be occurred. For that we
have to be honest and produce genuine research.
To prevent research misconduct, plagiarism our
concern authority should create appropriate anti-
plagiarism software to catch the illegal one.
There is a great opportunity to do so.
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
Integrity should be maintained in every aspects
of our life although there are some drawbacks
remained. To overcome such challenges or
drawbacks the following recommendations
might be adopted and followed.
 More emphasis needs to be placed on
prevention, so that whatever processes
are adopted will be perceived as
supportive of a system to ensure good
research practice and not as isolated
punitive action.
 Appropriate authority e.g. government,
other research institutes should take a
master plan to develop a research policy
that must ensure accountability and
transparency.
 Research body should establish special
mechanisms for oversight, review, and
manage the whole process so that
misconduct might be minimized or
removed.
 University and/ or other relevant
organizations where research practices
are welcomed should allocate enough

time to produce a quality research work.
If the researchers get relax from
―pressure to publish‖ they must produce
a high quality research without doing
any research misconduct like plagiarism
etc. Or their performance evaluation
system should not be on the basis of
quantity of paper rather it should be on
the basis of quality of paper.
 Research Audit should be implemented
if possible. Because it is a very good
endeavor to avoid research misconduct,
plagiarism, falsification, stealing of
other works etc.
 Moreover, government should be open
in this regard. Open communication
should be ensured to promote research/
academic ethics. And finally we can
recommend that a good & strong legal
entity/ body should be established to
manage the investigation, appeal, if any,
against misconduct.
9. CONCLUSIONS
Good research is ultimately based on trust – trust
between research colleagues and between
academic institutions and industry, and the trust
of the public and policy makers in the research
community. Without such trust, the research
system would quickly flounder. Trust in science
and scholarship needs to be a priority for all
nations and institutions. The research
community needs to be able to apply good
research practice and has to be prepared to deal
with situations when there are suspicions of
misconduct. Waiting for a serious case of
misconduct to prompt such action is short-
sighted and risks undermining the standing of
science in society. Protecting research integrity,
without stifling research creativity, is a constant
learning process. The deliberations of the ESF
MO Forum also suggest that there is no ‗one size
fits all‘ framework of research integrity
governance that can be readily applied across all
European countries. Science organizations and
research institutions in each country should
discuss and develop their own research integrity
governance structures, suited to the country‘s
size, resources and research infrastructures.
Regardless of the approach adopted in particular
countries or institutions, sharing experience is
extremely important. It can help to provide easy
access to best practice locally, nationally and
internationally; the pooling of knowledge and
experiences will build up a body of data on the
extent of research misconduct and measures to
deal with and prevent the phenomenon, locally,
nationally, and beyond. Networks offer an
invaluable international forum for practitioners
to share their experiences and to identify and
debate issues around research integrity
governance. Other tools for information sharing
include the establishment of a web site or other
public forum to capture good quality
documentation on GRP and guidelines, etc. This
could also include presentation of misconduct
scenarios as an educational tool for researchers.
In summary, there is a balance to be struck
between promotion of GRP and prevention of
misconduct on the one hand, and investigation
and punishment of misconduct on the other.
10. REFERENCES
1. AMERICAN ASSOCI ATION FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (AAAS)
and the U.S. Office of Research Integrity
(ORI) (2000). The Role of Activities of
Scientific Societies in Promoting Research
Integrity. Washington, D.C. Available URL:
http://www.aaas.org/ssp/dspp/sfr 1/
projects/integrity, html.

2. BAILEY, CD; HASSELBACK, JR &
KARCHER, JN (2005): Research
Misconduct in Accounting Literature: A
Survey of the Most Prolific Researchers‘
Actions and Beliefs. ABACUS. 37, (1) 2001
3. BOLTON, PA (2002): Scientific Ethics.
BURNS, N & GROVE, SK (1993): The
Practice of nursing research: conduct,
critique and utilization ended Philadelphia
W.B. Saunders.
4. BOSTON COLLEGE, (2004): Principles on
research integrity and misconduct. Boston
College
http://www.bc.edu/research/rcip/princ
5. BURD, S (2005): Scientists See Big
Business on the Offensive: The Chronicle of
Higher Education, Past chronicle Issues.
http:// chronicle.com/data/articles.dir/art-
41.dir/issue-16.dir/16a02601 .html
6. CHINN, PL & KRAMER, MK (1991):
Theory and Nursing: A systematic approach
3rd. Mosby Year Book. St Louis
7. CHO M, ET AL. (2000), Policies on Faculty
Conflicts of Interest at US
Universities. 284:2203–2208.
8. CLARK, E & MC CANN, TV (2005):
Researching Students: An Ethical Dilemma.
Nurse researcher. 12 (3), 42-52.
9. ESF/ORI SCIENCE POLICY BRIEFING
30 (2007). Research Integrity: global
responsibility to foster common standards.
10. EUROPEAN SCIENCE FOUNDATION
(2000). Good scientific practice in research
and scholarship
11. FARTHING, J (1998): An editor‘s response
to fraudsters. British Medical Journal.
316(17): 26-33; see www.bmj.com
12. FAWCETT, J (1989): Analysis and
Evaluation of conceptual Modules of
Nursing ended. F.A Davis Co. Philadelphia
13. FIORIDA INTERNATIONAL
UNIVERSITY (1995): Policy on
Misconduct in Research. Academic Affairs
Policies and Procedures Manual.
http://www.vsu.edu/ugs/regulationsmanual
14. FRANKEL, MS (2003): Developing a
Knowledge Base on Integrity in Research
and Scholarship. Phi Kappa Phi Forum.
83(2): 4649
15. FREDA, MC & KEARNEY MH (2005):
Ethical issues faced by nursing editors.
Western journal of nursing research. [West J
Nurs Res] Jun; 27 (4): 487-499.
16. FROSMAN, B (1999): An Ethical Analysis
of the Phenomenon of Misconduct in
Research. Acta Oncologica. 38(1): 107-110
17. GOODSTEIN, DL (2002): Scientific
Misconduct: http
://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/200
2/02JF/02j fgoo. htm.
18. GUENIN, LM (1999): Expressing a
consensus on candour. Nature. Vol 402.
www.nature.com.
19. HAO, BALTIMORE D. (2008). A Global
Perspective on Science and
Technology. P.322:544–551. [PubMed]
20. INGHAM, JC & HORNER, J (2004): Ethics
and Research. The ASHA Leader. March
16.
21. IVERSON,M; FRANKEL,M & SIANG, S
(2003): Scientific Societies and Research
Integrity: What are they doing and How well
are They doing it? Science and Engineering
Ethics. 9, (2): 41-158.

22. JEFFERS, B. (2005): Research
Environments That Promote Integrity.
Nursing Research, 54 (1): 63-70.
23. KING, AD & ANDERSON (1999): The
meaning of research integrity. Journal of the
Medical and Dental Association 157(4): 254
272.
24. MELEIS, AI (1985): Theoretical Nursing:
Development and Progress, J.B Lippincott.
Philadelphia.
25. NATAL ACADEMIC PRESS (1999):
Integrity in scientific research.
26. NATURE. (2006). Finding Fraud in
China. P. 441:549–550. [PubMed]
27. NATURE. (2008). Culture Clash in China.
P.456:545–546. [PubMed]
28. OFFICE OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY
(1989): Policy on Research Misconduct:
United State Department of Health and
Human Services.
29. QIU J. (2007). Chinese Law aims to Quell
Fear of Failure. Nature. P.
449:12. [PubMed]
30. RESNIK D. (2003), From Baltimore to Bell
Labs: Reflections on Two Decades of
Debate about Scientific Misconduct.
Accountability in Research. 10:123–135.
31. RESNIK D. (2007). The Price of
Truth. New York: Oxford University Press.
32. RESNIK D. (2008). Playing Politics with
Science. New York: Oxford University
Press.
33. ROGERS, BL (1989): concept analysis and
the development of nursing knowledge. The
evolutionary cycle. Journal of Advanced
Nursing. 14: 330-335.
34. SCHULTZ, MD (2000): Promoting integrity
through instructions to authors. Office
of_Research Integrity. U.S Department of
Health and Human Services.
35. SHAMOO A, RESNIK D.
(2009), Responsible Conduct of Research. 2.
New York: Oxford University Press.
36. SHERMAN J (2005): Professional
Misconduct, Plagiarism, Ethics, Educational
materials. New England Review. 26 (3): 82-
89.
37. SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY, (1995):
Policy & Procedures. Policy No. 60.01
38. SOUTH AFRICAN SOCIETY FOR
NURSING RESEARCH (1996): Ethical
standards for nurse researchers. Curationis.
19(1): 74-74.
39. STENECK, N (2000): Assessing research
integrity. Report presented at the ORI
conference on research integrity. U.S
Department of Health & Human Services.
40. STENECK, NH (2003): The professional
Societies in promoting Integrity in Research.
American Journal of Health Behavior. 27
(3). S239-S247.
41. SWAZEY, J & ANDERSON, MS (1993):
Mentors, advisors and role models in
graduate and professional education.
Association of academic health centres.
Washington D.C.
42. TITUS S, WELLS J, RHOADES L. (2008).
Repairing Research Integrity. P.453:980–
982. [PubMed]
43. UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICES (PHS) (2000): Policy on
instructions in the Responsible Conduct of
Research (RCR) from the office of Research
Integrity.

44. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, (1998):
Misconduct in research and authorship.
University of Colorado System.
Administrative Policy Statement.
45. WALKER, LO & AVANT, KO (1995):
Strategies for theory construction in nursing
3rd co. California: Appellon & Laugh
46. WHITBECK, C (2004): Trust and the
Future of Research. Physics Today.
November: 48-53; see: http://encyclopedie
en.snyke.com/articles/scholarly_method.htm
l.

Research Integrity in a Developing Country: Review and Analysis (Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Research Integrity in a Developing Country: Review and Analysis (Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities)

Similar to Research Integrity in a Developing Country: Review and Analysis (Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities) (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (10)

Research Integrity in a Developing Country: Review and Analysis (Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities)