Scholarlink

Background <p>Academic misconduct remains a pervasive challenge in medical education, threatening the integrity of research and healthcare outcomes. Traditional self-reporting methods for identifying misconduct are often limited by social desirability bias, leading to significant underreporting. This study explores the use of an indirect feedback approach to provide a more accurate assessment of academic misconduct among medical students.</p> Methods <p>A cross-sectional study was conducted involving 1,622 postgraduate medical students from five medical institutions in Sichuan and Chongqing. Participants completed a structured questionnaire designed to collect demographic information, indirect feedback on observed misconduct, and perceptions of academic pressures. Observed misconduct included data fabrication, plagiarism, and inappropriate authorship. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, employing chi-square tests to evaluate associations between demographic variables and reported observations.</p> Results <p>Only 2.71% of participants admitted personal involvement in misconduct, whereas 27.11% reported observing such behaviors within their networks. The most frequently observed misconduct occurred during data collection (31.73%) and data processing (29.51%), stages often marked by minimal oversight. Male students, those in higher academic years, and individuals with more publications were significantly more likely to report observed misconduct (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Notably, respondents with no publications reported lower levels of observed misconduct (26.85%) compared to those with 3–5 publications (45.93%). Additionally, respondents identified misconduct among undergraduate peers, research group members, and collaborators, with undergraduate peers accounting for the highest proportion (45.35%).</p> Conclusion <p>Indirect feedback revealed a 27.11% prevalence of observed misconduct, compared to only 2.71% self-reported, suggesting underreporting in traditional approaches. This method provides valuable insights into misconduct patterns and at-risk groups, enabling the development of targeted interventions. Despite its potential, limitations such as reliance on self-reported observations warrant further refinement. Future research should integrate indirect feedback with complementary tools to enhance monitoring systems and foster a culture of transparency and accountability in medical education. By addressing academic misconduct effectively, institutions can uphold research integrity and public trust in scientific outcomes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Indirect feedback as a tool for identifying academic misconduct: a cross-sectional multicentral study among medical students

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月1日

查看全文
  • Haitao Tang,
  • Xufeng Wan,
  • Wen Zeng

摘要

Background

Academic misconduct remains a pervasive challenge in medical education, threatening the integrity of research and healthcare outcomes. Traditional self-reporting methods for identifying misconduct are often limited by social desirability bias, leading to significant underreporting. This study explores the use of an indirect feedback approach to provide a more accurate assessment of academic misconduct among medical students.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted involving 1,622 postgraduate medical students from five medical institutions in Sichuan and Chongqing. Participants completed a structured questionnaire designed to collect demographic information, indirect feedback on observed misconduct, and perceptions of academic pressures. Observed misconduct included data fabrication, plagiarism, and inappropriate authorship. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, employing chi-square tests to evaluate associations between demographic variables and reported observations.

Results

Only 2.71% of participants admitted personal involvement in misconduct, whereas 27.11% reported observing such behaviors within their networks. The most frequently observed misconduct occurred during data collection (31.73%) and data processing (29.51%), stages often marked by minimal oversight. Male students, those in higher academic years, and individuals with more publications were significantly more likely to report observed misconduct (p < 0.001). Notably, respondents with no publications reported lower levels of observed misconduct (26.85%) compared to those with 3–5 publications (45.93%). Additionally, respondents identified misconduct among undergraduate peers, research group members, and collaborators, with undergraduate peers accounting for the highest proportion (45.35%).

Conclusion

Indirect feedback revealed a 27.11% prevalence of observed misconduct, compared to only 2.71% self-reported, suggesting underreporting in traditional approaches. This method provides valuable insights into misconduct patterns and at-risk groups, enabling the development of targeted interventions. Despite its potential, limitations such as reliance on self-reported observations warrant further refinement. Future research should integrate indirect feedback with complementary tools to enhance monitoring systems and foster a culture of transparency and accountability in medical education. By addressing academic misconduct effectively, institutions can uphold research integrity and public trust in scientific outcomes.