The Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Research Misconduct Among Health Sciences Undergraduates: How Do They Associate?

Authors

  • Mohd Sham Othman Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300 Kuala Lumpur
  • Arimi Fitri Mat Ludin Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300 Kuala Lumpur
  • Raveena Vaidheswary Muralitharan Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300 Kuala Lumpur
  • Wan Muhamad Nasrul Naqim Wan Mohd Yaacob Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300 Kuala Lumpur
  • Sze Ling Liew Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300 Kuala Lumpur
  • Anis Afiqah Zuha Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300 Kuala Lumpur
  • Nur Amalia Ra'oh Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300 Kuala Lumpur
  • Nur Raihan Ahmad Ruzaini Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300 Kuala Lumpur
  • Nur Amanina Norazmi Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300 Kuala Lumpur

Keywords:

Fabrication, Falsification, KAP, Plagiarism, Research Misconduct

Abstract

Research misconduct is an act of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. This unethical act affects the quality of research publications in the private and public sectors and threatens public trust. Studies have shown that many factors contribute to the act of committing this behaviour, such as environment, pressure, and time constrain. Therefore, this study aims to determine the association between knowledge, attitude, and practice of research misconduct among undergraduate students of the Faculty of Health Sciences (FSK), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Kuala Lumpur Campus (UKM KL). A questionnaire was adapted and modified for this study from the ‘Reporting of Suspected Research Misconduct in Biomedical and Behavioural Research’ by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity. The universal sampling method was applied, and the participants were 3rd-year and 4th-year students. For this study, a quantitative cross-sectional study was employed. In conclusion, there is a weak association between knowledge and attitude towards the practice of research misconduct among undergraduate researchers of FSK, UKM KL, which is not statistically significant. 

References

Adeleye, O. A., & Adebamowo, C. A. (2012). Factors Associated with Research Wrongdoing in

Nigeria. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(5), 1–13.https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2012.7.5.15

Broome, M. E., Pryor, E., Habermann, B., Pulley, L., & Kincaid, H. (2005). The Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire—Revised (SMQ-R): Validation and Psychometric Testing. Accountability in Research, 12(4), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620500440253

Buzzelli, D. E. (1993). The Definition of Misconduct in Science: A View From NSF . Science, 259,584–648.

Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., & Fang, F. C. (2014). Sources of error in the retracted scientific literature. The FASEB Journal, 28(9), 3847–3855. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.14-256735

El-Dessouky, H. F., Abdel-Aziz, A. M., Ibrahim, C., Moni, M., Abul Fadl, R., & Silverman, H. (2011). Knowledge, Awareness, and Attitudes about Research Ethics among Dental Faculty in the Middle East: A Pilot Study. International Journal of Dentistry, 2011, 1–13.https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/694759

Fanelli, D. (2009). How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), 1–11.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

Fanelli, D. (2013). Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign. PLoS Medicine, 10(12), 1–6.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001563

Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retractedscientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109

Felaefel, M., Salem, M., Jaafar, R., Jassim, G., Edwards, H., Rashid-Doubell, F., Yousri, R., Ali, N. M.,& Silverman, H. (2018). A Cross-Sectional Survey Study to Assess Prevalence and Attitudes Regarding Research Misconduct among Investigators in the Middle East. Journal of Academic

Ethics, 16(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9295-9 Gardner, W., Lidz, C. W., & Hartwig, K. C. (2005). Authors’ reports about research integrity problemsin clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 26, 244–251.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2004.11.013

Helgesson, G., & Eriksson, S. (2015). Plagiarism in research. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy,18(1), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9583-8

Luther, F. (2010). Scientific Misconduct: Tip of an Iceberg or the Elephant in the Room? Journal of Dental Research, 89(12), 1364–1367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510384627

Okonta, P., & Rossouw, T. (2013). Prevalence of Scientific Misconduct Among a Group of Researchersin Nigeria. Developing World Bioethics, 13(3), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00339.x

Olesen, A. P., Amin, L., & Mahadi, Z. (2018). Researchers experience of misconduct in research in Malaysian higher education institutions. Accountability in Research, 25(3), 125–141.https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1429925

Ong, K. M. (2016, July 26). How serious is academic fraud in top universities in Malaysia? Astro AWANI Network Sdn. Bhd. https://www.astroawani.com/berita-malaysia/how-serious-academicfraud-top-universities-malaysia-112136?_ga=2.102681795.336000188.1640581862-1465425358.1640581862

Panigrahi, S. K., Darun, M. R., Waris, M., & Kumar, S. (2017). Promoting Research Governance Through Integrity and Ethical Practices: A Qualitative Study. FGIC 1st Conference on Governance& Integrity, 274–282. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2949333

Smith, R. (2006). Research misconduct: the poisoning of the well. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.5.232

Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(4), 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040923

Steen, R. G., Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2013). Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? PLoS ONE, 8(7), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068397

Stern, A. M., Casadevall, A., Steen, R. G., & Fang, F. C. (2014). Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. ELife, 3, 1–10.https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02956

The Office of Research Integrity. (n.d.). Definition of Research Misconduct. U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. Retrieved December 27, 2021, from https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-researchmisconduct

Yusof, D. S., & Masrom, U. K. (2011). Malaysian Students’ Understanding of Plagiarism. The International Journal - Language Society and Culture, 33, 1–7.

Downloads

Published

2025-08-04

Issue

Vol. 17 No. 1 (2022): Jurnal Intelek Vol. 17 Issue 1 (February) 2022

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Mohd Sham Othman, Arimi Fitri Mat Ludin, Raveena Vaidheswary Muralitharan, Wan Muhamad Nasrul Naqim Wan Mohd Yaacob, Sze Ling Liew, Anis Afiqah Zuha, Nur Amalia Ra'oh, Nur Raihan Ahmad Ruzaini, Nur Amanina Norazmi

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.