Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111" }, "headline": "Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A...", "datePublished": "2025-01-20T15:55:28", "dateModified": "2025-02-20T09:27:37", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Habtamu Belay Hailu" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Telahun Teka Wolde" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Betselot Yirsaw Wubete" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Joseph Ali" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sintayehu Tsegaye Bitew" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background Research integrity, essential for ethical scientific research, has been inadequately addressed in Ethiopia, resulting in gaps in addressing misconduct like plagiarism, falsification and fabrication. The aim of this study was to assess the magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia. Methods An institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted on a random sample of researchers. Data were collected via a self-administered, structured questionnaire, which was adapted from a similar study. The collected data were analysed using descriptive, bivariate, and multivariable logistic regression. Result A total of 244 researchers participated in the study, resulting in an 82% response rate. In our study, 37.7% of participants reported engaging in at least one form of misconduct, 95% CI [31.6%, 44.1%]. Authorship misconduct was the most common form of self-reported misconduct (47.5%), 95% CI [41.1%, 54.0%], followed by fabrication and falsification (40.6%), 95% CI [34.4%, 47.0%]. Publication pressure was significantly associated with research misconduct (AOR = 3.18; 95% CI: [1.02, 9.95]). Conclusion This study highlights the prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices among academic researchers, with authorship misconduct, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism being the most commonly reported types. Attitudes toward research misconduct and self-reported involvement were influenced by academic position, research experience, and publication pressure, with junior researchers being more likely to report engaging in misbehavior. While ethics training has occasionally been associated with reduced rates of research misconduct, its effectiveness remains uncertain, as institutional culture, supervision, and mentorship may play a more significant role. Addressing research misconduct requires a comprehensive approach that extends beyond ethical instruction, incorporating targeted support for early-career researchers, open dialogue, and institutional policy reforms. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v2", "name": "Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public..." } } ] } Home Browse Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Belay Hailu H, Teka Wolde T, Yirsaw Wubete B et al. Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159997.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] Habtamu Belay Hailu https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9807-4074 1 , Telahun Teka Wolde 2 , Betselot Yirsaw Wubete 3 , Joseph Ali 4 , Sintayehu Tsegaye Bitew 1 Habtamu Belay Hailu https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9807-4074 1 , Telahun Teka Wolde 2 , [...] Betselot Yirsaw Wubete 3 , Joseph Ali 4 , Sintayehu Tsegaye Bitew 1 PUBLISHED 20 Feb 2025 Author details Author details 1 Ethiopian Defense University, College of Health Sciences, Bishoftu, Ethiopia 2 Addis Ababa University College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 3 Global Funds Country Coordinating Mechanism of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 4 Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Habtamu Belay Hailu Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Telahun Teka Wolde Roles: Investigation, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Betselot Yirsaw Wubete Roles: Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Joseph Ali Roles: Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Sintayehu Tsegaye Bitew Roles: Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background Research integrity, essential for ethical scientific research, has been inadequately addressed in Ethiopia, resulting in gaps in addressing misconduct like plagiarism, falsification and fabrication. The aim of this study was to assess the magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia. Methods An institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted on a random sample of researchers. Data were collected via a self-administered, structured questionnaire, which was adapted from a similar study. The collected data were analysed using descriptive, bivariate, and multivariable logistic regression. Result A total of 244 researchers participated in the study, resulting in an 82% response rate. In our study, 37.7% of participants reported engaging in at least one form of misconduct, 95% CI [31.6%, 44.1%]. Authorship misconduct was the most common form of self-reported misconduct (47.5%), 95% CI [41.1%, 54.0%], followed by fabrication and falsification (40.6%), 95% CI [34.4%, 47.0%]. Publication pressure was significantly associated with research misconduct (AOR = 3.18; 95% CI: [1.02, 9.95]). Conclusion This study highlights the prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices among academic researchers, with authorship misconduct, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism being the most commonly reported types. Attitudes toward research misconduct and self-reported involvement were influenced by academic position, research experience, and publication pressure, with junior researchers being more likely to report engaging in misbehavior. While ethics training has occasionally been associated with reduced rates of research misconduct, its effectiveness remains uncertain, as institutional culture, supervision, and mentorship may play a more significant role. Addressing research misconduct requires a comprehensive approach that extends beyond ethical instruction, incorporating targeted support for early-career researchers, open dialogue, and institutional policy reforms. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Research misconduct, Responsible Conduct of Research, Questionable Research Practices, Research Integrity Corresponding Author(s) Habtamu Belay Hailu ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Habtamu Belay Hailu Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: Research reported in this publication was supported by the Fogarty International Centre for the U.S. National Institutes of Health provided under award number R25TW001604. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 Belay Hailu H et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Belay Hailu H, Teka Wolde T, Yirsaw Wubete B et al. Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159997.2 ) First published: 20 Jan 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159997.1 ) Latest published: 20 Feb 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159997.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 In order to improve the discussion's depth and relevance, we have added more sources in this updated manuscript. The main points made in the study are further supported and contextualized by these sources. The references have been added in the proper places in the text, and the typesetters will update the reference list accordingly. To make it easier to read and understand, some small editing changes have also been made. None of the study's findings, conclusions, or methods were significantly altered. In order to improve the discussion's depth and relevance, we have added more sources in this updated manuscript. The main points made in the study are further supported and contextualized by these sources. The references have been added in the proper places in the text, and the typesetters will update the reference list accordingly. To make it easier to read and understand, some small editing changes have also been made. None of the study's findings, conclusions, or methods were significantly altered. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Wei Feng See the authors' detailed response to the review by Patrick Okonta READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Research misconduct (RM) refers to unethical or dishonest behaviour in the context of academic or scientific research. It encompasses a range of actions that violate the principles of integrity, honesty, and transparency in research. Common forms of research misconduct include plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification of data aimed at misleading or manipulating the scientific community. Making up data or findings and recording or reporting them is defined as fabrication while falsification is changing or eliminating data or results, or interfering with research supplies, tools, or processes in such a way that the study is not properly documented in the research record. Plagiarism is defined as the unauthorized use of another person’s ideas, procedures, outputs, or words. 1 – 4 RM undermines the credibility of scholarly work, compromises the integrity of scientific findings, and can have far-reaching consequences for the advancement of knowledge and trust within the academic community. 5 Deficits in research integrity pose a significant challenge to the credibility and reliability of scientific findings in the field. Despite stringent ethical guidelines and regulations, instances of questionable research practices persist, leading to concerns regarding the accuracy, reproducibility, and transparency of biomedical studies. The ethical conduct of research is guided by key principles, including honesty, objectivity, carefulness, credit, and transparency. Honesty requires researchers to truthfully report data, results, methods, and conflicts of interest in all scientific communications. 6 – 8 The principle of credit emphasizes giving proper recognition to others’ contributions, preventing plagiarism, and ensuring fair attribution in publications and patents. 9 Key factors contributing to research misconduct include pressure from funders, pursuit of recognition, publication pressure, inadequate penalties, lower academic rank, and lack of ethics training. These factors create conditions where ethical violations are more likely to occur. 2 , 10 , 11 Several studies that explore RM, including in some countries in sub-Saharan Africa, have emerged to help increase collective understanding of the phenomenon. According to an article focusing on sub-Saharan Africa, several authors suggest that Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) may frequently disregard research integrity norms, despite a lack of substantial evidence to support this claim. 12 In an exploratory survey of a convenience sample of researchers conducted in Nigeria in 2013, 68.9% reported participation in at least one form of misconduct. 10 Similarly, a cross-sectional survey among Kenyan investigators focused on HIV research indicated that 68.3% of respondents engaged in any misconduct. 13 These findings from the African context are alarming in their own right and significantly exceed the global prevalence reported in the systematic review and meta-analysis by Xie et al. in 2021, in which the overall prevalence of RM involving at least one misconduct was 2.9% across 42 publications published between 1992 and 2020 across different regions of the world. 14 Concern over research misconduct (RM), which compromises the integrity and credibility of scientific output, is on the rise in academic and research institutions. 4 Understanding the structural and behavioral elements that contribute to RM is aided by theoretical frameworks. By taking into account both individual and institutional factors, this study draws from the larger body of knowledge on research misconduct (RM). While the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) 15 sheds light on how attitudes, perceived norms, and behavioral control affect individual decision-making in RM, the Institutional Theory of Ethics 16 offers a framework for comprehending how organizational norms and structures shape researchers’ ethical behavior. Numerous research integrity studies have used these theoretical perspectives to analyze the intricate interactions between institutional, systemic, and individual factors that lead to RM. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Research Misconduct According to the TPB, three main elements influence human behavior: perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and attitudes. 15 Researchers’ attitudes regarding ethical behavior, their perceptions of their colleagues’ expectations, and their sense of power over moral decision-making can all affect how likely they are to commit misbehavior. Institutional Theory of Ethics and Systemic Influences Researchers’ compliance with ethical standards is influenced by workplace culture, institutional norms, and oversight mechanisms. 17 According to research, RM rates are typically lower in organizations with robust ethical oversight and accountability procedures. 18 On the other hand, higher propensities for wrongdoing have been associated with pressures including funding competition, publication requirements, and institutional ranking indicators. 19 Ethics training is a topic of ongoing debate, with some experts emphasizing its importance in fostering research integrity, 11 , 20 , 21 while others argue that it may not always achieve the desired impact. 5 , 22 , 23 This divergence in views highlights the complexity of the issue. On the one hand, proponents believe that structured training programs can instil ethical principles and improve decision-making in research. On the other hand, critics suggest that the effectiveness of these programs varies, and in some cases, may not be enough to significantly reduce research misconduct. Understanding these differing perspectives is crucial to evaluating the true role of ethics training in promoting responsible conduct in research. Retractions can serve as a significant indicator of RM, offering insights into unethical research practices. Retraction analyses have shown that research misconduct is a global issue, and Ethiopia is no exception. A study by Rossouw et al. examined retractions between 2014 and 2018 involving African authors or co-authors, finding that biomedical and health sciences accounted for over 60% of the 245 retracted papers. Ethiopia was one of 17 African countries included in the database, with 5 (2.04%) of its authors’ works retracted while neighbouring Kenya accounted for 2.45% of retractions. 24 Despite these findings, we did not identify any published empirical studies specifically investigating research misconduct in Ethiopia. To the best of our knowledge, the magnitude of RM has not been studied among researchers in Ethiopia’s academic and research institutions. To that end, the purpose of the study was to assess the magnitude of RM – as well as associated attitudes and factors – among faculty researchers conducting biomedical and epidemiological studies involving human participants in an academic institution in Ethiopia. Methods Study design and setting An institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted to investigate the magnitude, attitudes, and associated factors concerning RM from January to April 2024 among faculty researchers at a public University in Ethiopia. Study population The study included faculty members who were actively involved in health or health sciences research and who had at least one publication. Ethical aspects This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the Addis Ababa University, College of Health Sciences, School of Public Health Institutional Research Ethics Review Committee (IRERC), with approval number SPH/296/2024 and dated 19/01/2024. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their inclusion in the study. Eligibility criteria • Inclusion criteria: Faculty members with research experience and publications in local and international journals within the last five years were eligible for the study. • Exclusion criteria: Individuals who had not engaged in research and publication, along with faculty members who were unwilling to participate or did not give consent, were excluded from the data collection. Questionnaire The questionnaire was divided into four sections to collect study participants’ baseline characteristics, general attitudes toward RMC, behavioural influences (factors), and respondents’ self-report of the frequency of their research misconduct practices. Behaviours related to RM and Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) were grouped into five research misconduct composites: circumventing research ethics regulations; fabrication and falsification; plagiarism; authorship misconduct; and conflict of interest. The questionnaire was adapted from the study on “Reliability and validation of an attitude scale regarding responsible conduct in research” among Middle Eastern researchers. 25 Questionnaires were collected in such a way that no third party or even the researchers could link specific respondents to completed questionnaires to ensure complete anonymity. In this study, “Research Misconduct” encompasses composites such as circumventing research ethics regulations, plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification; while “Questionable Research Practices” are defined as including authorship issues and conflicts of interest composites. Each misconduct composite is defined by specific questions. Sample size determination Based on a margin of error of 5%, a confidence level of 95%, an estimated prevalence rate of 52.8% in the Middle East, 11 and a total population size of 836 investigators at the targeted university, we calculated a sample size of 297 participants using Cochran’s formula. 26 (1) n 0 = ( Z α / 2 ) 2 ∗ ( p ) ( q ) ( d ) 2 For this study, sample sizes were calculated for each specific objective, and the largest sample size was used as the final sample size. Using the formula above, the largest sample size, n 0 = 383, was determined using the prevalence of 52.8% for the second specific objective regarding attitude from a study in the Middle East. 11 n 0 = ( 1.96 ) 2 ( 0.528 ) ( 0.472 ) ( 0.05 ) 2 = 383 Since this sample size exceeds 5% of the total population (836 * 0.05 = 42), the final sample size was adjusted using Cochran’s correction formula. 26 (2) n 1 = n 0 1 + n 0 N By substituting the values into the correction formula (2) provided above, the minimum sample size (adjusted) was determined to be 263. n 1 = 383 1 + 383 836 = 263 Bartlett et al. recommended using response rates from previous studies of the same or similar populations to address non-response rates. 27 Therefore, adjusting for a response rate of 88.7% from a prior study in Nigeria, 10 the final sample size was calculated as n 1 = 263/0.887 = 297. Sampling procedure We used probability sampling approach to select respondents, employing simple random sampling method to ensure random selection and representativeness of our sample. This approach maintained the randomness and representativeness of our sample. The sample size of 297 was distributed across four schools based on the proportionate population size in each of the four disciplines, considering individuals with at least one publication. Each department’s share was calculated by dividing 297 by the total population of 836 and multiplying by 0.35. Study units were then selected from each department using a simple random sampling procedure. This sampling procedure is illustrated schematically in Figure 1 . Figure 1. Schematic presentation of sampling procedure. Bias To minimize potential biases in this study on research misconduct, validated tools and metrics were employed to ensure reliable measurement, 25 and data collectors were trained to ethically and confidentially collect the data. Confidentiality and anonymity were emphasized to mitigate social desirability bias. Data analysis was conducted objectively using statistical software to ensure accuracy and reduce human error. Efforts were made to avoid confirmation bias by incorporating diverse perspectives in the study framework and seeking evidence that challenged initial hypotheses. Transparent reporting of methodologies, assumptions, and limitations further enhanced the credibility of the research. Variables of the study Independent variables • Baseline characteristics : sex, academic position, highest degree earned, prior training on research ethics. • Behavioural influences (Factors) : pressure from funders, need for recognition, publication pressure, unclear definition of what constitutes misconduct, insufficient censure for misconduct, and financial conflict of interest. Dependent variables • RM : circumventing RE regulations, plagiarism, and fabrication and falsification • QRPs : authorship misconduct and conflict of interest Data analysis Data from paper questionnaires were collected, entered into Epi-Data 3.1, and subsequently transferred to SPSS version 27. Descriptive analyses summarized demographic frequencies and percentages. Bivariate analysis was utilized to explore relationships between the composite scores of misconducts and factors such as age, gender, prior ethics training, graduate school attended, and academic position. Respondents were asked about the frequency of various misconduct behaviours, with response options including “Never,” “Once or twice,” or “Three or more times” for self-reported misconduct (RM, QRPs, & Overall RM). To ensure suitable categorization and sufficient data for analysis, these responses were transformed into dichotomous choices: “Never” and “One or more times”. 28 Each type of self-reported misconduct was individually measured and categorized into one of the previously mentioned five research misconduct composites. Additionally, the magnitude of self-reported misconduct was calculated for each composite category. For composite scores ( Figure 2 ), multivariable analysis models were constructed. Independent variables identified as significant in bivariate analysis at a p-value threshold of 0.25 were included in the binary logistic regression model. This approach ensures that relevant factors are not overlooked, which can happen when using stricter thresholds like 0.05 in logistic regression modelling. 29 A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant for covariates in the final multivariate analysis. Odds ratios (OR) with confidence intervals (CI) and corresponding p-values were calculated. Figure 2. Research misconduct composites transformation procedure. Regarding ‘attitude’ items, responses were coded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Responses of ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ were grouped together as ‘agree,’ while ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’ were categorized as ‘disagree.’ The mid-point response, ‘neutral,’ was not included in either the ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ categories. Descriptive analysis then summarized the distribution of responses across these categories. 11 Missing data were addressed through mean imputation, replacing missing values with the average of available data for the respective variable. Ethical considerations Prior to filling out the questionnaire, participants were informed of the study’s purpose via a one-page information sheet. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study. Participants were provided with detailed information about the study objectives, procedures, potential risks, and benefits before signing the consent form. This process was reviewed and approved by the Addis Ababa University, College of Health Sciences, School of Public Health Institutional Research Ethics Review Committee (IRERC), with approval number SPH/296/2024 and dated 19/01/2024. The study adhered to the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Due to the sensitive nature of the data acquired and the possibility for dignitary harm, the name of the respondents’ institution was blinded and the names of specific schools were anonymized. The self-administered questionnaire did not include any questions that could reveal participants’ identities, Questionnaires were distributed and collected in person by trained data collectors who explained the study and ensured voluntary participation. After completion, participants placed their questionnaires directly into sealed collection boxes, which were only opened by the researchers after data collection was completed. No identifying information was included on the questionnaires, ensuring that neither the data collectors nor the researchers could link specific responses to individual participants. This process was designed to protect respondent anonymity while encouraging high response rates. Results A total of 297 questionnaires were distributed, with 244 completed, resulting in an 82% response rate. Table 1 shows the demographic and professional characteristics of participants. Almost half (49.6%) ranged in age from 25 to 34 years. Male participants comprised 66.8%. Roughly half (50.8%) were Assistant Professors, and lecturers accounted for 29.1%. Additionally, 49.6% of participants held MD/PhD degrees, while 31.1% held M.Sc./MPH/other master’s degrees. Most participants (90.2%) received their most recent degree from Ethiopian universities. Two-thirds reported prior completion of research ethics training. Most participants (59.0%) had 1-5 years of research experience, while 19.3% had over 10 years. In terms of publication history, 55.7% had published 1-5 papers, and 26.2% had published more than 10. In their most recent publication, 61.1% were co-authors; 38.9% were first authors. Respondents’ self-report of behaviours Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage of occurrences of misconduct composites and associated behaviours reported by respondents. The misconduct composites included circumventing research ethics regulations, fabrication and falsification, plagiarism, authorship misconduct, and conflict of interest. Key findings for the study are summarized as follows. Concerning the composite circumventing research ethics regulations, several respondents (17.2%) reported not obtaining proper informed consent, 14.8% reported using confidential information about research subjects without authorization, and 12.3% reported conducting research involving human participants without prior approval from a Research Ethics Committee. Regarding plagiarism, 20.9% reported using others’ ideas without credit, 10.7% reported submitting a published manuscript for secondary publication, and 9.4% published others’ results. For fabrication and falsification, 15.2% fabricated data, 14.3% altered data without disclosure, 26.2% selected data to support hypotheses, and 23.0% dropped outliers without mentioning. Among respondents, reports of authorship misconduct were prevalent, with 37.3% indicating that they gave authorship to those who contributed minimally and 23.0% allowing their name to appear on papers where they contributed little. Non-disclose of conflicts of interest was reported among 17.6% of respondents, 13.1% indicated that they had compromised study rigor as a result of funding pressure, and 7.8% reported altering or suppressing research results inappropriately as a result of funding pressure. Regarding composites of RM and QRPs, Authorship misconduct emerged as the most prevalent form of research misconduct, with 47.5% of respondents reported involvement (95% CI: 31.6%–44.1%). Fabrication and falsification followed closely, with 40.6% acknowledging participation (95% CI: 34.4%–47.0%). Additionally, 26.6% of respondents reported engaging in plagiarism, while 25.4% reported conflicts of interest, and 29.1% admitted to violating research ethical standards. Attitudes regarding selected responsible conduct of research issues Findings revealed recognition and a strong consensus among participants on the importance of addressing research misconduct, reporting unethical behaviour, declaring conflicts of interest, and mentoring trainees. However, there was some discomfort in discussing ethical issues, which could impede efforts to improve research integrity (see Table 3 ). Table 3. Attitudes regarding selected responsible conduct of research issues (n = 244). Question n (%) Agree n (%) Disagree I am concerned about the amount of misconduct 194 (79.5) 50 (20.5) The responsibility for the scientific integrity of a study lies with the principal investigator only 50 (20.5) 194 (79.5) Investigators should report instances of research misconduct 228 (93.4) 16 (6.6) Investigators should declare conflicts of interest to the appropriate officials 230 (94.3) 14 (5.7) I should monitor my trainees’ work to ensure that they are developing into responsible researchers 235 (96.3) 9 (3.7) I feel uncomfortable talking with fellow researchers about unethical behavior 54 (22.1) 190 (77.9) Perceived behavioural influences on responsible conduct of research Table 4 shows participants perception toward RCR. Concerning publication pressure, 56.1% considered it moderately influencing while 34.4% considered it strongly influencing. Participants perceived that financial conflicts of interest play a role in RMC, with 46.3% believing it had some influence, while a similar proportion (45.9%) perceived it had strong influence. Regarding pressure from funders, 45.5% of participants perceived it had some influence while 39.3% viewed it as strongly influential. Insufficient censure of misconduct was viewed as an influence in committing research misconduct, with 54.9% believing it had some influence, while 34.4% noting strong influence. Table 4. Behavioural influences in responsible conduct of research (n = 244). Factors n (%) No influence n (%) Influence Publication pressure 23 (9.4) 221 (90.6) Financial conflict of interest 19 (7.8) 225 (92.2) Pressure from funders 37 (15.2) 207 (84.8) Need for recognition 25 (10.2) 219 (89.8) Insufficient censure for misconduct 26 (10.7) 218 (89.3) Association of attitudes towards certain issues in responsible conduct in research As Table 5 shows, attitudes towards research integrity are segmented according to ethics training, research experience, and academic status. Results showed that more participants below the rank of lecturer (27.4%) believed that scientific integrity is solely the responsibility of the principal investigator, compared to 16.1% of those above lecturer rank. This indicates a link between academic rank and views on responsibility for scientific integrity. The difference was significant (χ 2 = 3.851, df = 1, p < 0.05). Investigators with ethics training tended to endorse the attitude that investigators should report instances of research misconduct more strongly; with a higher percentage (96.3%) agreeing that research misconduct should be reported. The differences were significant (χ 2 = 4.906, df = 1, p < 0.027). In terms of feeling uncomfortable discussing ethical behaviour, academic rank is significantly associated (χ 2 = 7.185, df = 1, p < 0.007), as a relatively high percentage (31.6%) of those below lecturer level felt uncomfortable doing so. Bivariate analysis of self-reported misconduct ‘one or more times’ within each misconduct composite segmented by potential predictors When comparing self-reported misconduct with those who did not get ethics training, a Chi-Square test showed statistically significant relationships (p < 0.05), suggesting that prior ethics training was linked to lower self-reported misbehavior across various categories (see Table 6 ). In general, respondents with prior ethics training reported a relatively lower level of self-reported misconduct across all categories when comparing self-reported misconduct with participants without ethics training. Compared to those with ethics training, 34.9% of those without ethics training reported conflicts of interest. The difference was significant (χ 2 = 5.290, df = 1, p < 0.021). Across schools, self-reported misconduct varies significantly by affiliation. Respondents from clinical schools, for example, reported greater rates of plagiarism, fabrication and falsification (FF), conflict of interest (CoI), RMC total, and Overall RMC, at 30.9%, 44.5%, 28.8%, 44.0%, and 41.4%, respectively, than those from non-clinical schools. Significant differences were found (χ 2 = 7.159, df = 1, p < 0.007), (χ 2 = 4.904, df = 1, p < 0.027), (χ 2 = 4.528, df = 1, p < 0.033), (χ 2 = 8.460, df = 1, p < 0.004), (χ 2 = 4.314, df = 1, p < 0.038), respectively. Table 6. Association between self-report of misconduct ‘one or more times’ within each misconduct composite and predictors, 2024 (n = 244). Misconduct composite Prior ethics training n (%) School n (%) Academic rank n (%) Research experience n (%) Highest degree n (%) Age n (%) Yes (n = 161) No (n = 83) Non-clinical (n = 53) Clinical (n = 191) Below lecturer a (n = 95) Above lecturer b (n = 149) 1-5 years (n = 144) >5 years (n = 100) UG c (n = 12) GRAD d (n = 232) (25-34) (n = 121) (35 & above) (n = 123) CRE + 44 (27.3) 27 (32.5) 13 (24.5) 58 (30.4) 41 (43.2) * 30 (20.1) 48 (33.3) 23 (23.0) 6 (50.0) 65 (28.0) 48 (39.7) * 23 (18.7) Plagiarism 39 (24.2) 26 (31.3) 6 (11.3) 59 (30.9) * 38 (40.0) * 27 (18.1) 41 (28.5) 24 (24.0) 6 (50.0) 59 (25.4) 35 (28.9) 30 (24.4) FF ++ 63 (39.1) 36 (43.4) 14 (26.4) 85 (44.5) * 49 (51.6) * 50 (33.6) 66 (45.8) 33 (33.0) 5 (41.7) 94 (40.5) 56 (46.3) 43 (35.0) Authorship 77 (47.8) 39 (47.0) 23 (43.4) 93 (48.7) 43 (45.3) 73 (49.0) 64 (44.4) 52 (52.0) 5 (41.7) 111 (47.8) 55 (45.5) 61 (49.6) CoI +++ 33 (20.5) 29 (34.9) * 7 (13.2) 55 (28.8) * 28 (29.5) 34 (22.8) 41 (28.5) 21 (21.0) 8 (66.7) * 54 (23.3) 37 (30.6) 25 (20.3) RM total 62 (38.5) 33 (39.8) 11 (20.8) 84 (44.0) * 48 (50.5) * 47 (31.5) 64 (44.4) * 31 (31.0) 6 (50.0) 89 (38.4) 56 (46.3) * 39 (31.7) QRPs total 40 (24.8) 29 (34.9) 10 (18.9) 59 (30.9) 29 (30.5) 40 (26.8) 40 (27.8) 29 (29.0) 6 (50.0) 63 (27.2) 40 (33.1) 29 (23.6) Overall RM 60 (37.3) 32 (38.6) 13 (24.5) 79 (41.4) * 41 (43.2) 51 (34.2) 54 (37.5) 38 (38.0) 5 (41.7) 87 (37.5) 51 (42.1) 41 (33.3) * P < 0.05. a Participant having the rank of lecturer and below. b Participants having the rank of assistant professor and above. c Participants holding first degree (Undergraduate). d Participants holding MSc and above (Graduate). + Circumventing Research Ethics Regulations. ++ Falsification and Fabrication. +++ Conflict of Interest. The misconduct rates of those above and below the lecturer rank also differed significantly. The study found that 18.1% of participants above lecturer rank self-reported plagiarism, compared to 40.0% of participants below lecturer rank (χ 2 = 13.113, df = 1, p < 0.001); Additionally, 51.6% of participants below lecturer rank reported falsification and fabrication, while 33.6% of participants above lecturer reported misbehaviour. Significant differences were seen between these groups (χ 2 = 7.085, df = 1, p < 0.008). In terms of RMC-Total, 31.5% of respondents above lecturer rank reported committing RMC, which is considerably lower than the 50.5% of participants below lecturer rank (χ 2 = 8.012, df = 1, p < 0.005). Research misconduct was reported by 44.4% of respondents with less than 5 years of research experience, which was significantly higher compared to the 31.0% reported by those with more than 5 years of experience (χ 2 = 3.939, df = 1, p < 0.047). Self-reported research misconduct varies by age, with junior researchers 30 – 40 more likely to report engaging in multiple types of research misconduct than senior researchers (35+) (χ 2 = 4.853, df = 1, p < 0.028). Additionally, significant age differences were observed in bypassing research ethics regulations, with 39.7% of junior researchers admitting to this behaviour, compared to 18.7% of senior researchers (χ 2 = 12.005, df = 1, p < 0.001). Factors associated with RMC composites Table 7 highlights several significant predictors of research misconduct and related behaviours. Higher academic rank, older age, and a more responsible attitude toward scientific integrity were associated with a lower likelihood of circumventing research ethics regulations, engaging in plagiarism, and committing fabrication or falsification. Participants who reported feeling high publication pressure or working in clinical schools were more likely to engage in research misconduct. Table 7. Logistic regression results on Research Misconduct Composites (RMC) (n = 244). Variable Category n (%) (Never) n (%) (≥1 Times) COR (95% CI) AOR (95% CI) Academic Rank vs. CRE Below Lecturer 54 (31.2) 41 (57.7) 1 Above Lecturer 119 (68.8) 30 (42.3) 0.33 (0.19, 0.59) 0.47 (0.24, 0.93) * Academic Rank vs. Plagiarism Below Lecturer 57 (31.8) 38 (58.5) 1 Above Lecturer 122 (68.2) 27 (41.5) 0.33 (0.19, 0.60) 0.35 (0.19, 0.65) * School Affiliation vs. Overall RMC Non-Clinical 40 (26.3) 13 (14.1) 1 Clinical 112 (73.7) 79 (85.9) 2.17 (1.09, 4.32) 2.06 (1.01, 4.20) * School Affiliation vs. Plagiarism Non-Clinical 47 (26.3) 6 (9.2) 1 Clinical 132 (73.7) 59 (90.8) 3.50 (1.42, 8.64) 3.46 (1.37, 8.71) * Publication Pressure vs. Overall RMC No Influence 19 (12.5) 4 (4.3) 1 Influence 133 (87.5) 88 (95.7) 3.14 (1.03, 9.55) 3.18 (1.02, 9.95) * Attitude Towards Declaring CoI vs. Overall RMC Agree 147 (96.7) 83 (90.2) 1 Disagree 5 (3.3) 9 (9.8) 3.19 (1.03, 9.83) 4.61 (1.23, 17.29) * Age vs. CRE Younger (25-34) 73 (42.2) 48 (67.6) 1 Older (35 & above) 100 (57.8) 23 (32.4) 0.35 (0.20, 0.63) 0.25 (0.11, 0.56) * Education Level vs. CoI Undergraduate 4 (2.2) 8 (12.9) 1 Graduate 178 (97.8) 54 (87.1) 0.15 (0.04, 0.52) 0.16 (0.04, 0.57) * * Significant at p < 0.05, AOR: Adjusted odds ratio, COR: Crude odds ratio, CRE: Circumventing Research Ethics Regulations, CoI: Conflict of Interest. Researchers with more than 5 years of experience were more prone to authorship misconduct, while those with postgraduate degrees were less likely to engage in conflicts of interest. School affiliation, particularly clinical vs. non-clinical, also played a role in influencing research misconduct behaviours. For further details on these associations, including specific odds ratios, confidence intervals, and p-values please refer to the appendix. Discussion The findings of this study underscore the critical importance of maintaining research integrity and the responsible conduct of research within health-related fields. As the first investigation of its kind in Ethiopia, this study revealed significant instances of reported research misconduct, including data fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, which have the potential to threaten the credibility and reliability of scientific research. By systematically analysing these occurrences, the study highlights the pervasive nature of such practices. These results prompt an urgent call for reinforced ethical standards and robust oversight mechanisms to ensure the integrity of future research endeavours. In what follows, we explore the implications of these findings, propose potential strategies for mitigating research misconduct, and underscore the role of education and policy in fostering a culture of ethical research practices. As noted by Felaefel et al., comparing misconduct rates across studies is challenging due to differences in study methodologies and operational definitions of misconduct. 11 Variations in researchers’ awareness and reporting methods also affect the magnitude estimates of RM and QRPs. Despite these inconsistencies, our study’s findings align with those from studies conducted in Kenya and the Middle East, where similar patterns of research misconduct, such as authorship misconduct and data falsification, have been reported. 11 , 13 Our study identified a significant magnitude of reported research misconduct among participants, though it was comparatively lower than findings reported in studies from Nigeria, Kenya, and the Middle East. 10 , 11 , 13 The variability in reported rates of misconduct across different studies can be attributed to several factors. Firstly, variations in sample sizes impact statistical power and result variability, potentially influencing the observed magnitude of reported misconduct. Secondly, differences in participants’ levels of research experience and education may affect their understanding of what constitutes misconduct and their susceptibility to engaging in such behaviours. 4 This is evident in our study, where more than half of the participants had less than 5 years of research experience and were more likely to have been involved in committing research misconduct compared to their senior colleagues. Finally, the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity highlights the importance of considering cultural and institutional contexts in promoting research integrity and understanding the variability in reporting and actual rates of research misconduct across different settings. 30 The multivariable analysis showed that publication pressure was significantly associated with overall research misconduct. Pressure to meet publication targets may lead researchers to report engaging in compromised ethics or unethical practices. This finding aligns with the “publish or perish” culture in academia, which continuously pressures scholars to produce scholarly output. Current academic rules and regulations, such as those outlined by the Ethiopian Ministry of Education, impose publication quotas on academic staff. 31 Similarly, the CIOMS guideline on good governance practices for research institutions (2023) affirms that a “publish or perish” mentality increases the likelihood of scientific misconduct. 32 Our findings are also consistent with earlier studies that have identified publication pressure as a strong predictor of research misconduct. 10 , 11 , 13 , 33 – 37 There was a negative association between participants’ age and self-reported involvement in misconduct, suggesting that older participants were less likely to report circumventing research ethics regulations compared to younger ones. This may indicate differences in perceptions of misconduct or reluctance to admit certain behaviours. This finding aligns with previous studies conducted in the Middle East and the U.S.A. 11 , 34 Conversely, participants with more research experience or publications were twice as likely to report engaging in authorship misconduct as those with fewer years of experience. This suggests that as researchers gain more experience, they may be more likely to report engaging in misconduct, such as authorship wrongdoing. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that the likelihood of reporting authorship misconduct may be higher among more experienced researchers. 34 Behavioral ethics theories like Rest’s Four-Component Model of Moral Behavior 38 and the Theory of Planned Behavior 15 can be used to explain how various factors affect research misconduct (RM). According to Rest’s model, making moral decisions calls for moral sensitivity, discernment, drive, and execution—all of which can be impacted by perceived repercussions, institutional norms, and ethics education. However, our study’s lack of a substantial relationship between ethics education and RM raises the possibility that behavior change may require more than just training. This is consistent with the study by Fanelli, 4 who contends that RM tendencies are frequently determined by outside forces rather than ethical consciousness. These tendencies might be influenced by Ethiopia’s research culture, which is marked by growing academic sector and little oversight procedures. These theoretical frameworks offer important insights into the institutional and behavioral aspects impacting RM, notwithstanding the exploratory nature of this study at first. Such theories should be proactively incorporated into the study design of future research in order to comprehensively evaluate their suitability for use in various research contexts. The present study’s lack of statistical significance between prior ethics training and research misconduct reflects a common pattern in the literature, which has produced conflicting findings about the effectiveness of ethics instruction. According to studies conducted by prominent researchers in the field, research ethics training, including Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) programs, may not always have the expected impact on research behaviour or ethical decision-making. 5 , 22 , 23 , 39 – 42 Conversely, other studies have shown that prior ethics training strongly predicts lower research misconduct and benefits trainees. 11 , 20 , 21 , 43 – 46 The inconsistent findings across studies highlight the complexities of research ethics training and suggest that traditional techniques may not always be adequate in addressing the multidimensional nature of research misconduct. Further exploration of the effectiveness of research ethics training is crucial for understanding the underlying factors contributing to these inconsistencies, particularly given the lack of uniformity in definitions and the significant variability in the quality and nature of such training. Our study offers distinct insights that go beyond regional context, even if our results show similarities in research misconduct (RM) trends between Ethiopia, Kenya, and the Middle East. Our research is unique not only because it is conducted in Ethiopia but also because it examines RM in a research environment that is marked by a lack of institutional oversight, changing academic structures, and contextual issues like resource limitations, intense publication pressure, and lax ethical policy enforcement. Ethiopia lacks organized procedures and specific policies to deal with RM. Our work highlights how these systemic deficiencies influence researchers’ attitudes and actions, demonstrating how the lack of institutional responsibility and clear guidelines leads to the prevalence of RM. Additionally, our study emphasizes how academic rank and career stage affect RM engagement, showing that early-career researchers—who frequently face more pressure to publish—report higher levels of wrongdoing than senior academics. This result is in line with international studies, 4 but it is especially important in Ethiopia because mentorship programs and training on research integrity are still in their infancy. These observations are more broadly applicable outside of Ethiopia to other LMICs that deal with comparable institutional and structural constraints. In order to effectively address RM, the findings highlight the necessity of context-specific interventions, such as focused ethics training, stronger institutional regulations, and enhanced research oversight. Future research should look more closely at how policy implementation and institutional reforms can lessen RM, especially in environments where regulatory frameworks are still developing. The study may be limited by self-reporting biases, which are common in surveys addressing sensitive topics like research misconduct. Its cross-sectional design restricts the ability to establish causation between factors, necessitating caution in interpreting the findings. Additionally, relying on self-reported data may introduce social desirability bias, leading participants to underreport or misrepresent their involvement in misconduct. As the first study of its kind in the country, there are no comparable studies for reference. Despite these limitations, the study’s findings are crucial for guiding efforts to enhance research integrity and effectively combat misconduct. Despite the valuable findings of this study, several questions remain unanswered, highlighting the need for further research. Although the study identified factors associated with research misconduct, the interactions and relative importance of these factors are still unclear. Future longitudinal studies could explore temporal associations to better understand the causal mechanisms behind research misconduct. Additionally, while this study used quantitative methods, qualitative methods could provide deeper insights into researchers’ motivations and perceptions of unethical behaviour. The participants were primarily sampled from an academic institution, raising concerns about the generalizability of the findings to other types of research institutions and to other academic institutions. To address this limitation, future studies should include researchers from a wider range of sectors and geographical regions. Conclusion This study highlights the prevalence of various forms of research misconduct (RM) and questionable research practices (QRPs) among academic researchers, with plagiarism, authorship misconduct, fabrication, and falsification being the most frequently reported types. The findings indicate that academic rank, research experience, and publication pressure influence attitudes toward RM and self-reported engagement in misconduct. Notably, junior researchers and those with less experience were more likely to report misbehavior, whereas higher-ranking academics and those who actively upheld scientific integrity reported lower involvement. While prior research ethics training was occasionally associated with reduced self-reported misconduct, its effectiveness varied across different types of RM. The extent to which ethics training mitigates misconduct remains uncertain, as existing studies have yielded inconsistent findings. Institutional culture, research oversight, strong mentorship, and the practical application of ethical principles may play a more significant role in fostering responsible research conduct. Additionally, external pressures, such as funding requirements and publication expectations, substantially influenced researchers’ behaviors, underscoring the need for institutional reforms to promote research integrity. These findings suggest that addressing RM requires a comprehensive strategy beyond ethics education. Institutions should strengthen policies, facilitate open discussions on ethical challenges, and provide targeted support for early-career researchers. Further research is needed to explore how institutional and contextual factors shape engagement in RM and to develop tailored interventions for diverse academic settings. Ethics and consent: This study adhered to ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, with ethical approval obtained under approval number SPH/296/2024. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants after providing detailed information about the study’s purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits. To ensure confidentiality, all data were deidentified according to the Safe Harbour method prior to analysis and submission. For a more detailed explanation of the ethical considerations and consent process, refer to the Methods and Ethical Considerations sections. Authors’ contribution This study was designed, drafted, and analysed by H.B.H.; T.T.W., B.Y.W., J.A., and S.T.B. made cleaning and revisions on the drafts. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Disclaimer The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Data availability statement Underlying data Zenodo: Magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at public university in Ethiopia: A cross-sectional survey. 47 – 51 All data have been deidentified prior to uploading in compliance with the Safe Harbour method to ensure the protection of personal and sensitive information. This project contains the following underlying data: • SPSS Dataset on Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices Description: SPSS file containing raw data used for statistical analysis in the study, https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14306711 . 47 • Table 1: Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants Description: Data table summarizing the demographic characteristics of the study participants, https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14540519 . 48 • Table 2: Respondents’ Self-Report of Behaviors Grouped Within Defined Misconduct Composites Description: Data table categorizing self-reported behaviors related to research misconduct, https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14540618 . 49 • Table 5: Association of Attitudes Towards Certain Issues in Responsible Conduct of Research and Percentages of Respondents Who Answered “Agree” Segmented by Various Factors Description: Data table analyzing associations between attitudes toward responsible research conduct and respondent characteristics, https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14540653 . 50 • Appendix: Detailed Statistical Data on Predictors of Research Misconduct Description: Supplementary dataset providing detailed statistical analyses of predictors related to research misconduct, https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14540669 . 51 Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). Extended data The extended data for this study is available at Zenodo with the DOI: https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14540865 . 52 This project contains the following: • Extended data.docx Description: Participant Information Sheet: This document provides detailed information about the study to ensure informed participation. Consent Form: This form outlines the consent process and ensures that participants agreed to be part of the study voluntarily. Questionnaire: This document contains the survey or data collection tool used in the study. Data are available under the terms of Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license. Acknowledgments We are grateful to Addis Abeba University’s School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins University for their support and resources. Special appreciation to our colleagues for their essential advice and assistance. We are also appreciative to the research participants for their invaluable contributions. References 1. Steneck NH: Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research: (638422011-001).2007 [cited 2023 Jul 6]. Publisher Full Text 2. Adeleye OA, Adebamowo CA: Factors Associated with Research Wrongdoing in Nigeria. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics. 2012 Dec; 7 (5): 15–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 3. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE): Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.2023. Reference Source Reference Source 4. Fanelli D: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. Tregenza T, editor. PLoS One. 2009 May 29; 4 (5): e5738. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 5. Cairns AC, Linville C, Garcia T, et al. : A phenomenographic study of scientists’ beliefs about the causes of scientists’ research misconduct. Res Ethics. 2021 Oct; 17 (4): 501–521. Publisher Full Text 6. THE BELMONT REPORT Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. DHEW Publication No. (OS) 78-0012; 1978. Reference Source 7. WMA DECLARATION OF HELSINKI – ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS. World Medical Association; 2013. Reference Source 8. International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. Geneva: CIOMS; 2017. 9. Shamoo AE, Resnik DB: Responsible Conduct of Research. 4th ed.Oxford University Press; 2022 [cited 2023 Nov 14]. Reference Source 10. Okonta P, Rossouw T: Prevalence of Scientific Misconduct Among a Group of Researchers in Nigeria: Scientific Misconduct in Nigeria. Dev. World Bioeth. 2013 Dec; 13 (3): 149–157. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 11. Felaefel M, Salem M, Jaafar R, et al. : A Cross-Sectional Survey Study to Assess Prevalence and Attitudes Regarding Research Misconduct among Investigators in the Middle East. J. Acad. Ethics. 2018 Mar; 16 (1): 71–87. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 12. Bain LE, Tchuisseu-Kwangoua LA, Adeagbo O, et al. : Fostering research integrity in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges, opportunities, and recommendations. Pan Afr. Med. J. 2022 [cited 2023 Nov 28]; 43 . PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Reference Source 13. Were E, Kaguiri E, Kiplagat J: Perceptions of occurrence of research misconduct and related factors among Kenyan investigators engaged in HIV research. Account. Res. 2020 Aug 17; 27 (6): 372–389. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 14. Xie Y, Wang K, Kong Y: Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 2021 Aug; 27 (4): 41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 15. Ajzen I: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991; 50 (2): 179–211. Publisher Full Text 16. Merton RK: The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press; 1973. 17. Titus S, Wells J, Rhoades L, et al. : Repairing research integrity. Nature. 2008; 453 : 980–982. Publisher Full Text 18. Martinson B, Anderson M: Scientists Behaving Badly. Nature. 2005; 435 : 737–738. Publisher Full Text 19. Fanelli D: Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PLoS One. 2010 Apr 21; 5 (4): e10271. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 20. Knight J: Evaluating the Impacts of a Research Ethics Training Course on University Researchers. Soc. Sci. 2023 Mar 17; 12 (3): 182. Publisher Full Text 21. Kalichman M: Survey study of research integrity officers’ perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct. Res. Integr. Peer Rev. 2020 Dec; 5 (1): 17. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 22. Antes AL, Murphy ST, Waples EP, et al. : A Meta-Analysis of Ethics Instruction Effectiveness in the Sciences. Ethics Behav. 2009 Sep 17; 19 (5): 379–402. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 23. Committee on Responsible Science, Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy, Policy and Global Affairs, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Fostering Integrity in Research. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2017 [cited 2024 Apr 15]. Reference Source 24. Rossouw TM, Matsau L, Van Zyl C: An Analysis of Retracted Articles with Authors or Co-authors from the African Region: Possible Implications for Training and Awareness Raising. J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics. 2020 Dec; 15 (5): 478–493. Publisher Full Text 25. Abd ElHafeez S, Salem M, Silverman HJ: Reliability and validation of an attitude scale regarding responsible conduct in research. Asghari Jafarabadi M, editor. PLoS One. 2022 Mar 16; 17 (3): e0265392. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 26. Cochran WG: Sampling techniques. 3d ed.New York: Wiley; 1977; 428 p. (Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics). 27. Bartlett JE, Kotrlik JW, Higgins CC: Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Inf. Technol. Learn. Perform. J. Spring 2001; Vol. 19 (1). Reference Source 28. DiStefano C, Shi D, Morgan GB: Collapsing Categories is Often More Advantageous than Modeling Sparse Data: Investigations in the CFA Framework. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 2021 Mar 4; 28 (2): 237–249. Publisher Full Text 29. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX: Applied logistic regression. 3rd ed.Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley; 2013; 500. (Wiley series in probability and statistics). 30. Resnik DB, Shamoo AE: The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. Account. Res. 2011 Mar 9; 18 (2): 71–75. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 31. Academic Rules and Regulations of the Ethiopian Comprehensive Public Higher Education Institutions. Addis Ababa: Ministry of Education; 2023. 32. International guidelines on good governance practice for research institutions. Geneva, Switzerland: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS); 2023. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Publisher Full Text 33. Van Dalen HP, Henkens K: Intended and Unintended Consequences of a Publish-or-Perish Culture: A Worldwide Survey. SSRN Electron. J. 2012 [cited 2023 Nov 7]. Publisher Full Text Reference Source 34. Maggio L, Dong TD, Driessen E, et al. : Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education. Perspect. Med. Educ. 2019 Mar 26; 8 (2): 74–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 35. Kearney M, Downing M, Gignac EA: Research integrity and academic medicine: the pressure to publish and research misconduct. J. Osteopath. Med. 2024 Feb 27 [cited 2024 Apr 9]; 124 : 187–194. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 36. Bahl R, Bahl S: Publication pressure versus ethics, in research and publication. Indian J. Community Med. 2021; 46 (4): 584–586. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 37. Al-Adawi S, Ali BH, Al-Zakwani I: Research Misconduct: The Peril of Publish or Perish. Oman Med. J. 2016 Jan 15; 31 (1): 5–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 38. Rest JR: Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. Praeger; 1986. 39. Kalichman M: Rescuing Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Education. Account. Res. 2014 Jan 2; 21 (1): 68–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 40. Kornfeld DS: Perspective: Research Misconduct. Acad. Med. 2012 Jul; 87 (7): 877–882. Publisher Full Text 41. Powell ST, Allison MA, Kalichman MW: Effectiveness of a responsible conduct of research course: a preliminary study. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 2007 Jul 4; 13 (2): 249–264. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 42. Steneck NH: Global Research Integrity Training. Science. 2013 May 3; 340 (6132): 552–553. Publisher Full Text 43. Chou C, Lee IJ, Fudano J: The present situation of and challenges in research ethics and integrity promotion: Experiences in East Asia. Account. Res. 2023 Jan 15; 1–24. 44. Olesen AP, Amin L, Mahadi Z, et al. : Emphasizing the experiences of researchers after RCR instructions: Introduction to Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) in Malaysia. Account. Res. 2019 Apr 3; 26 (3): 157–175. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 45. Litzky BE, Oz E: Ethical Issues in Information Technology: Does Education Make a Difference. Int. J. Inf. Commun. Technol. Educ. 2008 Apr 1; 4 (2): 67–83. Publisher Full Text 46. Watts LL, Medeiros KE, Mulhearn TJ, et al. : Are Ethics Training Programs Improving? A Meta-Analytic Review of Past and Present Ethics Instruction in the Sciences. Ethics Behav. 2017 Jul 4; 27 (5): 351–384. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 47. Hailu HB: SPSS Dataset on Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices. [Dataset]. Zenodo. 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 22]. Publisher Full Text 48. Hailu HB: Table 1: Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants. [Dataset]. Zenodo. 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 22]. Publisher Full Text 49. Hailu HB: Table 2: Respondents’ Self-Report of Behaviors Grouped Within Defined Misconduct Composites. [Dataset]. Zenodo. 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 22]. Publisher Full Text 50. Hailu HB: Table 5: Association of Attitudes Towards Certain Issues in Responsible Conduct of Research and Percentages of Respondents Who Answered “Agree” Segmented by Various Factors. [Dataset]. Zenodo. 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 22]. Publisher Full Text 51. Hailu HB: Appendix: Detailed Statistical Data on Predictors of Research Misconduct. [Dataset]. Zenodo. 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 22]. Publisher Full Text 52. Hailu HB: Extended Data for Research Misconduct: Participant Information Sheet, Consent Form, and Questionnaire. Zenodo. 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 22]. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 20 Jan 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Ethiopian Defense University, College of Health Sciences, Bishoftu, Ethiopia 2 Addis Ababa University College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 3 Global Funds Country Coordinating Mechanism of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 4 Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Habtamu Belay Hailu Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Telahun Teka Wolde Roles: Investigation, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Betselot Yirsaw Wubete Roles: Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Joseph Ali Roles: Project Administration, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Sintayehu Tsegaye Bitew Roles: Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information Research reported in this publication was supported by the Fogarty International Centre for the U.S. National Institutes of Health provided under award number R25TW001604. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 20 Feb 2025, 14:111 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159997.2 version 1 Published: 20 Jan 2025, 14:111 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159997.1 Copyright © 2025 Belay Hailu H et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Belay Hailu H, Teka Wolde T, Yirsaw Wubete B et al. Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.159997.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 20 Feb 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Feng W. Reviewer Report For: Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178141.r367774 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v2#referee-response-367774 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 27 Feb 2025 Wei Feng , Wuhan University, Wuhan, China Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178141.r367774 No ... Continue reading READ ALL No further comments. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: research integrity I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Feng W. Reviewer Report For: Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178141.r367774 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v2#referee-response-367774 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 28 Feb 2025 Habtamu Belay Hailu , Ethiopian Defence University, Ethiopia 28 Feb 2025 Author Response We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your invaluable comments and insights have greatly contributed to strengthening our work. Thank you for your thorough evaluation and ... Continue reading We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your invaluable comments and insights have greatly contributed to strengthening our work. Thank you for your thorough evaluation and approval. We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your invaluable comments and insights have greatly contributed to strengthening our work. Thank you for your thorough evaluation and approval. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 28 Feb 2025 Habtamu Belay Hailu , Ethiopian Defence University, Ethiopia 28 Feb 2025 Author Response We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your invaluable comments and insights have greatly contributed to strengthening our work. Thank you for your thorough evaluation and ... Continue reading We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your invaluable comments and insights have greatly contributed to strengthening our work. Thank you for your thorough evaluation and approval. We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your invaluable comments and insights have greatly contributed to strengthening our work. Thank you for your thorough evaluation and approval. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Okonta P. Reviewer Report For: Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178141.r367775 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v2#referee-response-367775 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 22 Feb 2025 Patrick Okonta , Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Delta State University, Abraka, Delta, P.O.Box 1031, Nigeria Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178141.r367775 The authors have responded to my earlier review comments and have appropriately revised the manuscript and ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors have responded to my earlier review comments and have appropriately revised the manuscript and offered satisfactory explanations to issues raised in my review comment . The manuscript is approved without reservation. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Research Ethics, bioethics, Maternal health, OBGYN I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Okonta P. Reviewer Report For: Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178141.r367775 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v2#referee-response-367775 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 24 Feb 2025 Habtamu Belay Hailu , Ethiopian Defence University, Ethiopia 24 Feb 2025 Author Response Thank you for your time and thorough review of our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable feedback and are pleased that our revisions have addressed your comments satisfactorily. Your insights have ... Continue reading Thank you for your time and thorough review of our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable feedback and are pleased that our revisions have addressed your comments satisfactorily. Your insights have helped us improve the quality of our work. Thank you again for your support and approval. Thank you for your time and thorough review of our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable feedback and are pleased that our revisions have addressed your comments satisfactorily. Your insights have helped us improve the quality of our work. Thank you again for your support and approval. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 24 Feb 2025 Habtamu Belay Hailu , Ethiopian Defence University, Ethiopia 24 Feb 2025 Author Response Thank you for your time and thorough review of our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable feedback and are pleased that our revisions have addressed your comments satisfactorily. Your insights have ... Continue reading Thank you for your time and thorough review of our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable feedback and are pleased that our revisions have addressed your comments satisfactorily. Your insights have helped us improve the quality of our work. Thank you again for your support and approval. Thank you for your time and thorough review of our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable feedback and are pleased that our revisions have addressed your comments satisfactorily. Your insights have helped us improve the quality of our work. Thank you again for your support and approval. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 20 Jan 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Okonta P. Reviewer Report For: Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175799.r361207 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v1#referee-response-361207 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 08 Feb 2025 Patrick Okonta , Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Delta State University, Abraka, Delta, P.O.Box 1031, Nigeria Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175799.r361207 The study has as its objective 'to assess the magnitude of RM – as well as associated attitudes and factors – among faculty researchers conducting biomedical and epidemiological studies involving human participants in an academic institution in Ethiopia.' The topic ... Continue reading READ ALL The study has as its objective 'to assess the magnitude of RM – as well as associated attitudes and factors – among faculty researchers conducting biomedical and epidemiological studies involving human participants in an academic institution in Ethiopia.' The topic is important especially in the context that it is the first of its kind in Ethiopia. Generally the manuscript is well written and the methods well described to make reproducibility of the study possible. However, the following issues /suggestions need to be addressed 1. Title. I would suggest inserting 'a' in front of 'Public University. 2. Abstract a) The aim of the study should be included either as a subheading or the second sentence in the Background subheading. b) The conclusion has to be completely revised as I suggests below 3. Method a) The variable 'Research experience' was measured by the number of years in an academic post. I wonder why the 'number of publications/scholarly works' was not used as a more appropriate marker for research experience? 4. Results a) Table 2 is not in the manuscript. b) Page 8- The sentence, 'A Chi-Square test showed significant associations with a p-value of less than 0.05' has to be expanded to make it complete and self explanatory. c) I suggest further analysis on Authorship misconduct should be provided to determine which of the 3 types studied was associated with more years of research experience. Conclusion. The conclusion as stated does not derive from this particular study or related to the objective of the study as stated by the Authors. The conclusion is too generic and very broad without any specific link to either the results from this study or the stated objectives of the study. It should be completely re-written. In addition, since there was no significant difference in research misconduct between those that had prior training in ethics and those who did not, I wonder the basis for the recommendation of educational interventions in the conclusion Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Research Ethics, bioethics, Maternal health, OBGYN I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Okonta P. Reviewer Report For: Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175799.r361207 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v1#referee-response-361207 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 20 Feb 2025 Habtamu Belay Hailu , Ethiopian Defence University, Ethiopia 20 Feb 2025 Author Response Dear Prof. Okonta, We are deeply grateful for your time and insightful comments on our publication, "Magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia: a ... Continue reading Dear Prof. Okonta, We are deeply grateful for your time and insightful comments on our publication, "Magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional survey." Your observations have given us valuable input on how to improve our study's impact, rigor, and clarity. We address each of your suggestions and describe the upcoming changes below. 1. Title Comment: I would suggest inserting 'a' in front of 'Public University.' Response: We appreciate your suggestion. The recommended change will be included in the upcoming manuscript version. 2. Abstract a) The aim of the study should be included either as a subheading or the second sentence in the Background subheading. Response: We agree that the abstract should clearly convey the purpose of the research. In the upcoming document, we will make sure that the aim is stated explicitly in the abstract's Background section. b) The conclusion has to be completely revised as I suggest below. Response: Thank you for the recommendation. We will update the conclusion to reflect the study's findings and make sure it appropriately captures the main findings. 3. Method a) The variable 'Research experience' was measured by the number of years in an academic post. I wonder why the 'number of publications/scholarly works' was not used as a more appropriate marker for research experience? Response: Thank you for this thoughtful comment. For a number of reasons, we chose to gauge research experience by the number of years spent in an academic position, even though the number of publications or scholarly works is undoubtedly a significant predictor of research production. As you perfectly know, research experience is not limited to publication output; rather, it includes more extensive tasks like research design, grant writing, mentorship, peer review, and using ethical judgment. In situations when publishing prospects are impacted by institutional, disciplinary, or systemic considerations, scholars with substantial research experience may have made major contributions to the field without necessarily having a high number of publications. Second, publication counts may be a potentially inconsistent indicator of experience due to a variety of external factors that do not necessarily reflect research experience, such as disparities in disciplinary norms (e.g., fields with shorter publication timelines versus those with longer research cycles), institutional support, and research funding availability. Predatory publishing, honorary authorship, and publication pressure can also inflate publication counts without necessarily reflecting true research expertise. Last but not least, gauging research experience by years spent in an academic position is consistent with earlier studies looking at research integrity and misconduct. Since academic tenure captures exposure to research-related activities outside of publications, it is frequently used as a stand-in for accumulated experience in studies. We do, however, recognize the value of considering the number of publications or academic works as a substitute or supplementary indicator of research experience. We will take this into account when determining the study's limitations and recommend it as an area for further investigation. 4. Results a) Table 2 is not in the manuscript. Response : We appreciate your observation. Due to its size, Table 2 was excluded from the main text per the editor's recommendation. With a clear reference given in the manuscript's Underlying Data section, it is now accessible through the Zenodo repository. To help readers appropriately, we will make sure that this is stated clearly in the pertinent passages of the text. b) Page 8 – The sentence, 'A Chi-Square test showed significant associations with a p-value of less than 0.05' has to be expanded to make it complete and self-explanatory. Response: We agree that further clarification is necessary. We will revise this section to provide a more detailed explanation of the statistical analysis and results. c) I suggest further analysis on authorship misconduct to determine which of the three types studied was associated with more years of research experience. Response: In response to your recommendation that authorship misconduct be further examined in relation to research experience, we performed a binary logistic regression analysis to investigate the relationship between research experience and the three distinct types of authorship misconduct evaluated in our study. The findings showed that, when examined as a composite measure, overall authorship misconduct demonstrated a significant relationship with research experience, but none of the individual types of authorship misconduct demonstrated a statistically significant association with research experience. This result draws attention to crucial factors pertaining to the statistical model's type and the data's structure. First, since certain types of authorship breaches may be context-dependent or rare, the lack of significance in individual models may be explained by the statistical power limitations of examining each type of misbehavior independently. On the other hand, the composite measure combines several aspects of authorship misbehavior, which makes the dataset more variable and enhances the model's capacity to identify a general correlation with research experience. Furthermore, this finding might be indicative of a larger pattern in behavior, where exposure to or participation in various types of authorship misconduct is influenced by research experience rather than just one type. A larger chance of coming across or taking part in several types of authorship misconduct may result from the more complicated authorship negotiations, institutional pressures, and collaborative dynamics that experienced researchers may confront. Research experience may determine overall authorship practices rather than individual transgressions, as indicated by the substantial connection seen in the composite measure. Additionally, logistic regression makes the assumption that the log-odds of the result and the predictor variable have a linear connection. Research experience and particular types of authorship misconduct may have a non-linear relationship or be impacted by unquantifiable moderating factors like the field of study, research culture, or institutional policies. The composite score may more accurately reflect the underlying relationship between research experience and authorship integrity overall since it covers a larger spectrum of misbehavior behaviors. We value your suggestion since it has helped us develop a deeper comprehension of the connection between authorship dishonesty and research experience. 5. Conclusion Comment: The conclusion as stated does not derive from this particular study or relate to the objective of the study as stated by the authors. The conclusion is too generic and very broad without any specific link to either the results from this study or the stated objectives of the study. It should be completely rewritten. In addition, since there was no significant difference in research misconduct between those that had prior training in ethics and those who did not, I wonder the basis for the recommendation of educational interventions in the conclusion. Response: Your critical evaluation of the conclusion section is greatly appreciated. To make sure it directly reflects the aims and findings of the study, we will carefully edit it. In addition, we will reconsider the rationale behind suggesting educational interventions in view of the findings. We appreciate your insightful comments and will take the recommendations into consideration. Our manuscript's impact, rigor, and clarity will all be improved by these modifications. We appreciate you taking the time and using your expertise to review our work. Dear Prof. Okonta, We are deeply grateful for your time and insightful comments on our publication, "Magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional survey." Your observations have given us valuable input on how to improve our study's impact, rigor, and clarity. We address each of your suggestions and describe the upcoming changes below. 1. Title Comment: I would suggest inserting 'a' in front of 'Public University.' Response: We appreciate your suggestion. The recommended change will be included in the upcoming manuscript version. 2. Abstract a) The aim of the study should be included either as a subheading or the second sentence in the Background subheading. Response: We agree that the abstract should clearly convey the purpose of the research. In the upcoming document, we will make sure that the aim is stated explicitly in the abstract's Background section. b) The conclusion has to be completely revised as I suggest below. Response: Thank you for the recommendation. We will update the conclusion to reflect the study's findings and make sure it appropriately captures the main findings. 3. Method a) The variable 'Research experience' was measured by the number of years in an academic post. I wonder why the 'number of publications/scholarly works' was not used as a more appropriate marker for research experience? Response: Thank you for this thoughtful comment. For a number of reasons, we chose to gauge research experience by the number of years spent in an academic position, even though the number of publications or scholarly works is undoubtedly a significant predictor of research production. As you perfectly know, research experience is not limited to publication output; rather, it includes more extensive tasks like research design, grant writing, mentorship, peer review, and using ethical judgment. In situations when publishing prospects are impacted by institutional, disciplinary, or systemic considerations, scholars with substantial research experience may have made major contributions to the field without necessarily having a high number of publications. Second, publication counts may be a potentially inconsistent indicator of experience due to a variety of external factors that do not necessarily reflect research experience, such as disparities in disciplinary norms (e.g., fields with shorter publication timelines versus those with longer research cycles), institutional support, and research funding availability. Predatory publishing, honorary authorship, and publication pressure can also inflate publication counts without necessarily reflecting true research expertise. Last but not least, gauging research experience by years spent in an academic position is consistent with earlier studies looking at research integrity and misconduct. Since academic tenure captures exposure to research-related activities outside of publications, it is frequently used as a stand-in for accumulated experience in studies. We do, however, recognize the value of considering the number of publications or academic works as a substitute or supplementary indicator of research experience. We will take this into account when determining the study's limitations and recommend it as an area for further investigation. 4. Results a) Table 2 is not in the manuscript. Response : We appreciate your observation. Due to its size, Table 2 was excluded from the main text per the editor's recommendation. With a clear reference given in the manuscript's Underlying Data section, it is now accessible through the Zenodo repository. To help readers appropriately, we will make sure that this is stated clearly in the pertinent passages of the text. b) Page 8 – The sentence, 'A Chi-Square test showed significant associations with a p-value of less than 0.05' has to be expanded to make it complete and self-explanatory. Response: We agree that further clarification is necessary. We will revise this section to provide a more detailed explanation of the statistical analysis and results. c) I suggest further analysis on authorship misconduct to determine which of the three types studied was associated with more years of research experience. Response: In response to your recommendation that authorship misconduct be further examined in relation to research experience, we performed a binary logistic regression analysis to investigate the relationship between research experience and the three distinct types of authorship misconduct evaluated in our study. The findings showed that, when examined as a composite measure, overall authorship misconduct demonstrated a significant relationship with research experience, but none of the individual types of authorship misconduct demonstrated a statistically significant association with research experience. This result draws attention to crucial factors pertaining to the statistical model's type and the data's structure. First, since certain types of authorship breaches may be context-dependent or rare, the lack of significance in individual models may be explained by the statistical power limitations of examining each type of misbehavior independently. On the other hand, the composite measure combines several aspects of authorship misbehavior, which makes the dataset more variable and enhances the model's capacity to identify a general correlation with research experience. Furthermore, this finding might be indicative of a larger pattern in behavior, where exposure to or participation in various types of authorship misconduct is influenced by research experience rather than just one type. A larger chance of coming across or taking part in several types of authorship misconduct may result from the more complicated authorship negotiations, institutional pressures, and collaborative dynamics that experienced researchers may confront. Research experience may determine overall authorship practices rather than individual transgressions, as indicated by the substantial connection seen in the composite measure. Additionally, logistic regression makes the assumption that the log-odds of the result and the predictor variable have a linear connection. Research experience and particular types of authorship misconduct may have a non-linear relationship or be impacted by unquantifiable moderating factors like the field of study, research culture, or institutional policies. The composite score may more accurately reflect the underlying relationship between research experience and authorship integrity overall since it covers a larger spectrum of misbehavior behaviors. We value your suggestion since it has helped us develop a deeper comprehension of the connection between authorship dishonesty and research experience. 5. Conclusion Comment: The conclusion as stated does not derive from this particular study or relate to the objective of the study as stated by the authors. The conclusion is too generic and very broad without any specific link to either the results from this study or the stated objectives of the study. It should be completely rewritten. In addition, since there was no significant difference in research misconduct between those that had prior training in ethics and those who did not, I wonder the basis for the recommendation of educational interventions in the conclusion. Response: Your critical evaluation of the conclusion section is greatly appreciated. To make sure it directly reflects the aims and findings of the study, we will carefully edit it. In addition, we will reconsider the rationale behind suggesting educational interventions in view of the findings. We appreciate your insightful comments and will take the recommendations into consideration. Our manuscript's impact, rigor, and clarity will all be improved by these modifications. We appreciate you taking the time and using your expertise to review our work. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 20 Feb 2025 Habtamu Belay Hailu , Ethiopian Defence University, Ethiopia 20 Feb 2025 Author Response Dear Prof. Okonta, We are deeply grateful for your time and insightful comments on our publication, "Magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia: a ... Continue reading Dear Prof. Okonta, We are deeply grateful for your time and insightful comments on our publication, "Magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional survey." Your observations have given us valuable input on how to improve our study's impact, rigor, and clarity. We address each of your suggestions and describe the upcoming changes below. 1. Title Comment: I would suggest inserting 'a' in front of 'Public University.' Response: We appreciate your suggestion. The recommended change will be included in the upcoming manuscript version. 2. Abstract a) The aim of the study should be included either as a subheading or the second sentence in the Background subheading. Response: We agree that the abstract should clearly convey the purpose of the research. In the upcoming document, we will make sure that the aim is stated explicitly in the abstract's Background section. b) The conclusion has to be completely revised as I suggest below. Response: Thank you for the recommendation. We will update the conclusion to reflect the study's findings and make sure it appropriately captures the main findings. 3. Method a) The variable 'Research experience' was measured by the number of years in an academic post. I wonder why the 'number of publications/scholarly works' was not used as a more appropriate marker for research experience? Response: Thank you for this thoughtful comment. For a number of reasons, we chose to gauge research experience by the number of years spent in an academic position, even though the number of publications or scholarly works is undoubtedly a significant predictor of research production. As you perfectly know, research experience is not limited to publication output; rather, it includes more extensive tasks like research design, grant writing, mentorship, peer review, and using ethical judgment. In situations when publishing prospects are impacted by institutional, disciplinary, or systemic considerations, scholars with substantial research experience may have made major contributions to the field without necessarily having a high number of publications. Second, publication counts may be a potentially inconsistent indicator of experience due to a variety of external factors that do not necessarily reflect research experience, such as disparities in disciplinary norms (e.g., fields with shorter publication timelines versus those with longer research cycles), institutional support, and research funding availability. Predatory publishing, honorary authorship, and publication pressure can also inflate publication counts without necessarily reflecting true research expertise. Last but not least, gauging research experience by years spent in an academic position is consistent with earlier studies looking at research integrity and misconduct. Since academic tenure captures exposure to research-related activities outside of publications, it is frequently used as a stand-in for accumulated experience in studies. We do, however, recognize the value of considering the number of publications or academic works as a substitute or supplementary indicator of research experience. We will take this into account when determining the study's limitations and recommend it as an area for further investigation. 4. Results a) Table 2 is not in the manuscript. Response : We appreciate your observation. Due to its size, Table 2 was excluded from the main text per the editor's recommendation. With a clear reference given in the manuscript's Underlying Data section, it is now accessible through the Zenodo repository. To help readers appropriately, we will make sure that this is stated clearly in the pertinent passages of the text. b) Page 8 – The sentence, 'A Chi-Square test showed significant associations with a p-value of less than 0.05' has to be expanded to make it complete and self-explanatory. Response: We agree that further clarification is necessary. We will revise this section to provide a more detailed explanation of the statistical analysis and results. c) I suggest further analysis on authorship misconduct to determine which of the three types studied was associated with more years of research experience. Response: In response to your recommendation that authorship misconduct be further examined in relation to research experience, we performed a binary logistic regression analysis to investigate the relationship between research experience and the three distinct types of authorship misconduct evaluated in our study. The findings showed that, when examined as a composite measure, overall authorship misconduct demonstrated a significant relationship with research experience, but none of the individual types of authorship misconduct demonstrated a statistically significant association with research experience. This result draws attention to crucial factors pertaining to the statistical model's type and the data's structure. First, since certain types of authorship breaches may be context-dependent or rare, the lack of significance in individual models may be explained by the statistical power limitations of examining each type of misbehavior independently. On the other hand, the composite measure combines several aspects of authorship misbehavior, which makes the dataset more variable and enhances the model's capacity to identify a general correlation with research experience. Furthermore, this finding might be indicative of a larger pattern in behavior, where exposure to or participation in various types of authorship misconduct is influenced by research experience rather than just one type. A larger chance of coming across or taking part in several types of authorship misconduct may result from the more complicated authorship negotiations, institutional pressures, and collaborative dynamics that experienced researchers may confront. Research experience may determine overall authorship practices rather than individual transgressions, as indicated by the substantial connection seen in the composite measure. Additionally, logistic regression makes the assumption that the log-odds of the result and the predictor variable have a linear connection. Research experience and particular types of authorship misconduct may have a non-linear relationship or be impacted by unquantifiable moderating factors like the field of study, research culture, or institutional policies. The composite score may more accurately reflect the underlying relationship between research experience and authorship integrity overall since it covers a larger spectrum of misbehavior behaviors. We value your suggestion since it has helped us develop a deeper comprehension of the connection between authorship dishonesty and research experience. 5. Conclusion Comment: The conclusion as stated does not derive from this particular study or relate to the objective of the study as stated by the authors. The conclusion is too generic and very broad without any specific link to either the results from this study or the stated objectives of the study. It should be completely rewritten. In addition, since there was no significant difference in research misconduct between those that had prior training in ethics and those who did not, I wonder the basis for the recommendation of educational interventions in the conclusion. Response: Your critical evaluation of the conclusion section is greatly appreciated. To make sure it directly reflects the aims and findings of the study, we will carefully edit it. In addition, we will reconsider the rationale behind suggesting educational interventions in view of the findings. We appreciate your insightful comments and will take the recommendations into consideration. Our manuscript's impact, rigor, and clarity will all be improved by these modifications. We appreciate you taking the time and using your expertise to review our work. Dear Prof. Okonta, We are deeply grateful for your time and insightful comments on our publication, "Magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional survey." Your observations have given us valuable input on how to improve our study's impact, rigor, and clarity. We address each of your suggestions and describe the upcoming changes below. 1. Title Comment: I would suggest inserting 'a' in front of 'Public University.' Response: We appreciate your suggestion. The recommended change will be included in the upcoming manuscript version. 2. Abstract a) The aim of the study should be included either as a subheading or the second sentence in the Background subheading. Response: We agree that the abstract should clearly convey the purpose of the research. In the upcoming document, we will make sure that the aim is stated explicitly in the abstract's Background section. b) The conclusion has to be completely revised as I suggest below. Response: Thank you for the recommendation. We will update the conclusion to reflect the study's findings and make sure it appropriately captures the main findings. 3. Method a) The variable 'Research experience' was measured by the number of years in an academic post. I wonder why the 'number of publications/scholarly works' was not used as a more appropriate marker for research experience? Response: Thank you for this thoughtful comment. For a number of reasons, we chose to gauge research experience by the number of years spent in an academic position, even though the number of publications or scholarly works is undoubtedly a significant predictor of research production. As you perfectly know, research experience is not limited to publication output; rather, it includes more extensive tasks like research design, grant writing, mentorship, peer review, and using ethical judgment. In situations when publishing prospects are impacted by institutional, disciplinary, or systemic considerations, scholars with substantial research experience may have made major contributions to the field without necessarily having a high number of publications. Second, publication counts may be a potentially inconsistent indicator of experience due to a variety of external factors that do not necessarily reflect research experience, such as disparities in disciplinary norms (e.g., fields with shorter publication timelines versus those with longer research cycles), institutional support, and research funding availability. Predatory publishing, honorary authorship, and publication pressure can also inflate publication counts without necessarily reflecting true research expertise. Last but not least, gauging research experience by years spent in an academic position is consistent with earlier studies looking at research integrity and misconduct. Since academic tenure captures exposure to research-related activities outside of publications, it is frequently used as a stand-in for accumulated experience in studies. We do, however, recognize the value of considering the number of publications or academic works as a substitute or supplementary indicator of research experience. We will take this into account when determining the study's limitations and recommend it as an area for further investigation. 4. Results a) Table 2 is not in the manuscript. Response : We appreciate your observation. Due to its size, Table 2 was excluded from the main text per the editor's recommendation. With a clear reference given in the manuscript's Underlying Data section, it is now accessible through the Zenodo repository. To help readers appropriately, we will make sure that this is stated clearly in the pertinent passages of the text. b) Page 8 – The sentence, 'A Chi-Square test showed significant associations with a p-value of less than 0.05' has to be expanded to make it complete and self-explanatory. Response: We agree that further clarification is necessary. We will revise this section to provide a more detailed explanation of the statistical analysis and results. c) I suggest further analysis on authorship misconduct to determine which of the three types studied was associated with more years of research experience. Response: In response to your recommendation that authorship misconduct be further examined in relation to research experience, we performed a binary logistic regression analysis to investigate the relationship between research experience and the three distinct types of authorship misconduct evaluated in our study. The findings showed that, when examined as a composite measure, overall authorship misconduct demonstrated a significant relationship with research experience, but none of the individual types of authorship misconduct demonstrated a statistically significant association with research experience. This result draws attention to crucial factors pertaining to the statistical model's type and the data's structure. First, since certain types of authorship breaches may be context-dependent or rare, the lack of significance in individual models may be explained by the statistical power limitations of examining each type of misbehavior independently. On the other hand, the composite measure combines several aspects of authorship misbehavior, which makes the dataset more variable and enhances the model's capacity to identify a general correlation with research experience. Furthermore, this finding might be indicative of a larger pattern in behavior, where exposure to or participation in various types of authorship misconduct is influenced by research experience rather than just one type. A larger chance of coming across or taking part in several types of authorship misconduct may result from the more complicated authorship negotiations, institutional pressures, and collaborative dynamics that experienced researchers may confront. Research experience may determine overall authorship practices rather than individual transgressions, as indicated by the substantial connection seen in the composite measure. Additionally, logistic regression makes the assumption that the log-odds of the result and the predictor variable have a linear connection. Research experience and particular types of authorship misconduct may have a non-linear relationship or be impacted by unquantifiable moderating factors like the field of study, research culture, or institutional policies. The composite score may more accurately reflect the underlying relationship between research experience and authorship integrity overall since it covers a larger spectrum of misbehavior behaviors. We value your suggestion since it has helped us develop a deeper comprehension of the connection between authorship dishonesty and research experience. 5. Conclusion Comment: The conclusion as stated does not derive from this particular study or relate to the objective of the study as stated by the authors. The conclusion is too generic and very broad without any specific link to either the results from this study or the stated objectives of the study. It should be completely rewritten. In addition, since there was no significant difference in research misconduct between those that had prior training in ethics and those who did not, I wonder the basis for the recommendation of educational interventions in the conclusion. Response: Your critical evaluation of the conclusion section is greatly appreciated. To make sure it directly reflects the aims and findings of the study, we will carefully edit it. In addition, we will reconsider the rationale behind suggesting educational interventions in view of the findings. We appreciate your insightful comments and will take the recommendations into consideration. Our manuscript's impact, rigor, and clarity will all be improved by these modifications. We appreciate you taking the time and using your expertise to review our work. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Feng W. Reviewer Report For: Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175799.r362165 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v1#referee-response-362165 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 07 Feb 2025 Wei Feng , Wuhan University, Wuhan, China Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175799.r362165 Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. This cross-sectional study investigates the extent of research misconduct (RM) among researchers in Ethiopia’s academic and research institutions using a structured questionnaire. Some findings are particularly intriguing, such as the lack ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. This cross-sectional study investigates the extent of research misconduct (RM) among researchers in Ethiopia’s academic and research institutions using a structured questionnaire. Some findings are particularly intriguing, such as the lack of significant statistical correlation between ethics education and RM. However, I have three primary concerns I would like to discuss with the authors. Firstly, the authors examined behavioral influences on responsible conduct in research and explored factors associated with RM composites. While the selected factors appear relevant to RM, the authors do not delve deeply into why these factors may influence RM. This oversight may represent a limitation of the quantitative approach and raises questions for scholars engaged in qualitative research. Therefore, I recommend that the authors provide a more comprehensive explanation of these influencing factors, taking into account the educational and cultural context of Ethiopia, as well as relevant existing theories. Secondly, as noted in the Discussion Sec., the findings from Ethiopia align with those from Kenya and the Middle East. Readers may be interested in understanding the uniqueness and broader applicability of this study. The research's distinctiveness should not be solely attributed to the choice of Ethiopia as the research site. This concern is related to my first point regarding the investigation of established factors influencing RM, as the significance of the research appears less pronounced. I suggest that the authors further explore the uniqueness of this study and its potential broader applicability in future research. Thirdly, the article exhibits certain limitations in research methodology, particularly concerning the formulation of research hypotheses. The manuscript lacks a dedicated literature review section; instead, it briefly presents current research on RM in the Middle East within the Introduction Sec. This approach does not adequately develop research hypotheses by considering existing literature, which should be followed by validation through the questionnaire. I recommend that the authors enhance the methodological rigor of this cross-sectional study by incorporating a more thorough review of relevant literature to inform the formulation of their research hypotheses. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. Feng W, Zhou L, Xiao J: Beyond the traditional: Extending academic libraries’ roles in research integrity based on the causes of research misconduct. The Journal of Academic Librarianship . 2024; 50 (3). Publisher Full Text 2. Davis MS, Riske-Morris M, Diaz SR: Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: evidence from ORI case files. Sci Eng Ethics . 2007; 13 (4): 395-414 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. Sovacool B: Exploring Scientific Misconduct: Isolated Individuals, Impure Institutions, or an Inevitable Idiom of Modern Science?. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry . 2008; 5 (4): 271-282 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: research integrity I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Feng W. Reviewer Report For: Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175799.r362165 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v1#referee-response-362165 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 20 Feb 2025 Habtamu Belay Hailu , Ethiopian Defence University, Ethiopia 20 Feb 2025 Author Response Dear Ms. Feng, We greatly appreciate your time and critical input on our publication, "Magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional survey." ... Continue reading Dear Ms. Feng, We greatly appreciate your time and critical input on our publication, "Magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional survey." Your contributions are crucial in improving the clarity, rigor, and contextual relevance of our research. Below, we present a point-by-point response to your comments and detail how we plan to resolve them in the upcoming updates. Comment 1: Exploration of Factors Influencing RM "The authors examined behavioral influences on responsible conduct in research and explored factors associated with RM composites. While the selected factors appear relevant to RM, the authors do not delve deeply into why these factors may influence RM. This oversight may represent a limitation of the quantitative approach and raises questions for scholars engaged in qualitative research. Therefore, I recommend that the authors provide a more comprehensive explanation of these influencing factors, taking into account the educational and cultural context of Ethiopia, as well as relevant existing theories." Response: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We realize the necessity for a more in-depth examination of the mechanisms underpinning chosen factors' influence on RM. In next versions, we aim to expand the Discussion Section to investigate how research ethics training, institutional rules, and individual ethical views impact RM. Use behavioral and ethical theories, such as Rest's Four-Component Model of Moral Behavior and the Theory of Planned Behavior, to establish a theoretical basis for these influences. Contextualize our findings in Ethiopia's research and higher education landscape, including resource restrictions, academic pressure, and institutional control. Suggest qualitative studies to better understand the motivations and pressures shaping RM, as quantitative approaches may not fully capture these dynamics. Comment 2: Uniqueness and Broader Applicability of the Study "As noted in the Discussion Sec., the findings from Ethiopia align with those from Kenya and the Middle East. Readers may be interested in understanding the uniqueness and broader applicability of this study. The research's distinctiveness should not be solely attributed to the choice of Ethiopia as the research site. This concern is related to my first point regarding the investigation of established factors influencing RM, as the significance of the research appears less pronounced. I suggest that the authors further explore the uniqueness of this study and its potential broader applicability in future research." Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We intend to: Clearly explain the reasoning behind choosing Ethiopia as the study setting, beyond geographic interest, by highlighting important contextual factors like Ethiopia's growing higher education sector, variations in research integrity policies, and differences in institutional oversight. This will help to strengthen the discussion of our study's uniqueness and wider implications. Highlight Ethiopia's distinctive contributions by going into detail about how its ethical, regulatory, and educational contexts differ from those of Kenya and the Middle East. By relating our findings to worldwide research integrity issues, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where comparable systemic problems may affect RM, we can bolster the conversation about the findings' wider applicability. Examine the possibility of doing cross-country comparative research in the future to learn more about the common and distinctive elements affecting RM in different settings. Comment 3: Literature Review & Hypotheses Development "The article exhibits certain limitations in research methodology, particularly concerning the formulation of research hypotheses. The manuscript lacks a dedicated literature review section; instead, it briefly presents current research on RM in the Middle East within the Introduction Sec. This approach does not adequately develop research hypotheses by considering existing literature, which should be followed by validation through the questionnaire. I recommend that the authors enhance the methodological rigor of this cross-sectional study by incorporating a more thorough review of relevant literature to inform the formulation of their research hypotheses." Response: We appreciate your insightful comments. We take note of your comment that there isn't a specific literature review section. However, a separate section for the literature review is not required nor provided by the journal's formatting guidelines. Rather, we have adhered to the journal's structure, which incorporates pertinent literature into the Introduction section. The following actions have been made to address this concern, even though the research has already been completed, and the hypotheses cannot be changed retroactively: Strengthening the Literature Review: In order to strengthen the theoretical underpinnings of our work, we have extended our review of pertinent literature in the introduction and discussion parts. This comprises supplementary sources that enhance the importance of our research inquiry and the rationale behind our hypotheses. Clarifying the Rationale for Hypotheses: To clearly show how the body of existing literature influenced the development of our hypotheses, we have updated the introduction. This ensures a clear articulation of the theoretical and empirical foundation for our research. Addressing Methodological Rigor in the Discussion Section: We acknowledge the shortcomings of our first literature review and have included a discussion of how a more thorough theoretical framework could be incorporated into future research to further improve the study design. Key concepts pertaining to research misconduct (RM), its different manifestations, contributing factors, global and regional prevalence (including studies from sub-Saharan Africa), and gaps in the literature—specifically, the lack of empirical studies on RM in Ethiopia—are covered in our Introduction. Additionally, we have added the Institutional Theory of Ethics and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to improve the methodological rigor of our cross-sectional study and overcome the inherent limitations of our quantitative approach. In order to make sure that our study hypotheses are supported by well-established theoretical and empirical foundations, this inclusion was led by pertinent literature. This strategy complies with the journal's format while guaranteeing that the background, current literature, and theoretical foundations are adequately covered. We value your opinions and are willing to make any necessary revisions to the Introduction to improve its cohesion and clarity. If you have any specific recommendations for how the literature should be included into the current framework, do let us know. Thank you for your insightful comments. We look forward to making the necessary revisions to our text and value any additional advice along the way. Dear Ms. Feng, We greatly appreciate your time and critical input on our publication, "Magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional survey." Your contributions are crucial in improving the clarity, rigor, and contextual relevance of our research. Below, we present a point-by-point response to your comments and detail how we plan to resolve them in the upcoming updates. Comment 1: Exploration of Factors Influencing RM "The authors examined behavioral influences on responsible conduct in research and explored factors associated with RM composites. While the selected factors appear relevant to RM, the authors do not delve deeply into why these factors may influence RM. This oversight may represent a limitation of the quantitative approach and raises questions for scholars engaged in qualitative research. Therefore, I recommend that the authors provide a more comprehensive explanation of these influencing factors, taking into account the educational and cultural context of Ethiopia, as well as relevant existing theories." Response: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We realize the necessity for a more in-depth examination of the mechanisms underpinning chosen factors' influence on RM. In next versions, we aim to expand the Discussion Section to investigate how research ethics training, institutional rules, and individual ethical views impact RM. Use behavioral and ethical theories, such as Rest's Four-Component Model of Moral Behavior and the Theory of Planned Behavior, to establish a theoretical basis for these influences. Contextualize our findings in Ethiopia's research and higher education landscape, including resource restrictions, academic pressure, and institutional control. Suggest qualitative studies to better understand the motivations and pressures shaping RM, as quantitative approaches may not fully capture these dynamics. Comment 2: Uniqueness and Broader Applicability of the Study "As noted in the Discussion Sec., the findings from Ethiopia align with those from Kenya and the Middle East. Readers may be interested in understanding the uniqueness and broader applicability of this study. The research's distinctiveness should not be solely attributed to the choice of Ethiopia as the research site. This concern is related to my first point regarding the investigation of established factors influencing RM, as the significance of the research appears less pronounced. I suggest that the authors further explore the uniqueness of this study and its potential broader applicability in future research." Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We intend to: Clearly explain the reasoning behind choosing Ethiopia as the study setting, beyond geographic interest, by highlighting important contextual factors like Ethiopia's growing higher education sector, variations in research integrity policies, and differences in institutional oversight. This will help to strengthen the discussion of our study's uniqueness and wider implications. Highlight Ethiopia's distinctive contributions by going into detail about how its ethical, regulatory, and educational contexts differ from those of Kenya and the Middle East. By relating our findings to worldwide research integrity issues, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where comparable systemic problems may affect RM, we can bolster the conversation about the findings' wider applicability. Examine the possibility of doing cross-country comparative research in the future to learn more about the common and distinctive elements affecting RM in different settings. Comment 3: Literature Review & Hypotheses Development "The article exhibits certain limitations in research methodology, particularly concerning the formulation of research hypotheses. The manuscript lacks a dedicated literature review section; instead, it briefly presents current research on RM in the Middle East within the Introduction Sec. This approach does not adequately develop research hypotheses by considering existing literature, which should be followed by validation through the questionnaire. I recommend that the authors enhance the methodological rigor of this cross-sectional study by incorporating a more thorough review of relevant literature to inform the formulation of their research hypotheses." Response: We appreciate your insightful comments. We take note of your comment that there isn't a specific literature review section. However, a separate section for the literature review is not required nor provided by the journal's formatting guidelines. Rather, we have adhered to the journal's structure, which incorporates pertinent literature into the Introduction section. The following actions have been made to address this concern, even though the research has already been completed, and the hypotheses cannot be changed retroactively: Strengthening the Literature Review: In order to strengthen the theoretical underpinnings of our work, we have extended our review of pertinent literature in the introduction and discussion parts. This comprises supplementary sources that enhance the importance of our research inquiry and the rationale behind our hypotheses. Clarifying the Rationale for Hypotheses: To clearly show how the body of existing literature influenced the development of our hypotheses, we have updated the introduction. This ensures a clear articulation of the theoretical and empirical foundation for our research. Addressing Methodological Rigor in the Discussion Section: We acknowledge the shortcomings of our first literature review and have included a discussion of how a more thorough theoretical framework could be incorporated into future research to further improve the study design. Key concepts pertaining to research misconduct (RM), its different manifestations, contributing factors, global and regional prevalence (including studies from sub-Saharan Africa), and gaps in the literature—specifically, the lack of empirical studies on RM in Ethiopia—are covered in our Introduction. Additionally, we have added the Institutional Theory of Ethics and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to improve the methodological rigor of our cross-sectional study and overcome the inherent limitations of our quantitative approach. In order to make sure that our study hypotheses are supported by well-established theoretical and empirical foundations, this inclusion was led by pertinent literature. This strategy complies with the journal's format while guaranteeing that the background, current literature, and theoretical foundations are adequately covered. We value your opinions and are willing to make any necessary revisions to the Introduction to improve its cohesion and clarity. If you have any specific recommendations for how the literature should be included into the current framework, do let us know. Thank you for your insightful comments. We look forward to making the necessary revisions to our text and value any additional advice along the way. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 20 Feb 2025 Habtamu Belay Hailu , Ethiopian Defence University, Ethiopia 20 Feb 2025 Author Response Dear Ms. Feng, We greatly appreciate your time and critical input on our publication, "Magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional survey." ... Continue reading Dear Ms. Feng, We greatly appreciate your time and critical input on our publication, "Magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional survey." Your contributions are crucial in improving the clarity, rigor, and contextual relevance of our research. Below, we present a point-by-point response to your comments and detail how we plan to resolve them in the upcoming updates. Comment 1: Exploration of Factors Influencing RM "The authors examined behavioral influences on responsible conduct in research and explored factors associated with RM composites. While the selected factors appear relevant to RM, the authors do not delve deeply into why these factors may influence RM. This oversight may represent a limitation of the quantitative approach and raises questions for scholars engaged in qualitative research. Therefore, I recommend that the authors provide a more comprehensive explanation of these influencing factors, taking into account the educational and cultural context of Ethiopia, as well as relevant existing theories." Response: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We realize the necessity for a more in-depth examination of the mechanisms underpinning chosen factors' influence on RM. In next versions, we aim to expand the Discussion Section to investigate how research ethics training, institutional rules, and individual ethical views impact RM. Use behavioral and ethical theories, such as Rest's Four-Component Model of Moral Behavior and the Theory of Planned Behavior, to establish a theoretical basis for these influences. Contextualize our findings in Ethiopia's research and higher education landscape, including resource restrictions, academic pressure, and institutional control. Suggest qualitative studies to better understand the motivations and pressures shaping RM, as quantitative approaches may not fully capture these dynamics. Comment 2: Uniqueness and Broader Applicability of the Study "As noted in the Discussion Sec., the findings from Ethiopia align with those from Kenya and the Middle East. Readers may be interested in understanding the uniqueness and broader applicability of this study. The research's distinctiveness should not be solely attributed to the choice of Ethiopia as the research site. This concern is related to my first point regarding the investigation of established factors influencing RM, as the significance of the research appears less pronounced. I suggest that the authors further explore the uniqueness of this study and its potential broader applicability in future research." Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We intend to: Clearly explain the reasoning behind choosing Ethiopia as the study setting, beyond geographic interest, by highlighting important contextual factors like Ethiopia's growing higher education sector, variations in research integrity policies, and differences in institutional oversight. This will help to strengthen the discussion of our study's uniqueness and wider implications. Highlight Ethiopia's distinctive contributions by going into detail about how its ethical, regulatory, and educational contexts differ from those of Kenya and the Middle East. By relating our findings to worldwide research integrity issues, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where comparable systemic problems may affect RM, we can bolster the conversation about the findings' wider applicability. Examine the possibility of doing cross-country comparative research in the future to learn more about the common and distinctive elements affecting RM in different settings. Comment 3: Literature Review & Hypotheses Development "The article exhibits certain limitations in research methodology, particularly concerning the formulation of research hypotheses. The manuscript lacks a dedicated literature review section; instead, it briefly presents current research on RM in the Middle East within the Introduction Sec. This approach does not adequately develop research hypotheses by considering existing literature, which should be followed by validation through the questionnaire. I recommend that the authors enhance the methodological rigor of this cross-sectional study by incorporating a more thorough review of relevant literature to inform the formulation of their research hypotheses." Response: We appreciate your insightful comments. We take note of your comment that there isn't a specific literature review section. However, a separate section for the literature review is not required nor provided by the journal's formatting guidelines. Rather, we have adhered to the journal's structure, which incorporates pertinent literature into the Introduction section. The following actions have been made to address this concern, even though the research has already been completed, and the hypotheses cannot be changed retroactively: Strengthening the Literature Review: In order to strengthen the theoretical underpinnings of our work, we have extended our review of pertinent literature in the introduction and discussion parts. This comprises supplementary sources that enhance the importance of our research inquiry and the rationale behind our hypotheses. Clarifying the Rationale for Hypotheses: To clearly show how the body of existing literature influenced the development of our hypotheses, we have updated the introduction. This ensures a clear articulation of the theoretical and empirical foundation for our research. Addressing Methodological Rigor in the Discussion Section: We acknowledge the shortcomings of our first literature review and have included a discussion of how a more thorough theoretical framework could be incorporated into future research to further improve the study design. Key concepts pertaining to research misconduct (RM), its different manifestations, contributing factors, global and regional prevalence (including studies from sub-Saharan Africa), and gaps in the literature—specifically, the lack of empirical studies on RM in Ethiopia—are covered in our Introduction. Additionally, we have added the Institutional Theory of Ethics and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to improve the methodological rigor of our cross-sectional study and overcome the inherent limitations of our quantitative approach. In order to make sure that our study hypotheses are supported by well-established theoretical and empirical foundations, this inclusion was led by pertinent literature. This strategy complies with the journal's format while guaranteeing that the background, current literature, and theoretical foundations are adequately covered. We value your opinions and are willing to make any necessary revisions to the Introduction to improve its cohesion and clarity. If you have any specific recommendations for how the literature should be included into the current framework, do let us know. Thank you for your insightful comments. We look forward to making the necessary revisions to our text and value any additional advice along the way. Dear Ms. Feng, We greatly appreciate your time and critical input on our publication, "Magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional survey." Your contributions are crucial in improving the clarity, rigor, and contextual relevance of our research. Below, we present a point-by-point response to your comments and detail how we plan to resolve them in the upcoming updates. Comment 1: Exploration of Factors Influencing RM "The authors examined behavioral influences on responsible conduct in research and explored factors associated with RM composites. While the selected factors appear relevant to RM, the authors do not delve deeply into why these factors may influence RM. This oversight may represent a limitation of the quantitative approach and raises questions for scholars engaged in qualitative research. Therefore, I recommend that the authors provide a more comprehensive explanation of these influencing factors, taking into account the educational and cultural context of Ethiopia, as well as relevant existing theories." Response: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We realize the necessity for a more in-depth examination of the mechanisms underpinning chosen factors' influence on RM. In next versions, we aim to expand the Discussion Section to investigate how research ethics training, institutional rules, and individual ethical views impact RM. Use behavioral and ethical theories, such as Rest's Four-Component Model of Moral Behavior and the Theory of Planned Behavior, to establish a theoretical basis for these influences. Contextualize our findings in Ethiopia's research and higher education landscape, including resource restrictions, academic pressure, and institutional control. Suggest qualitative studies to better understand the motivations and pressures shaping RM, as quantitative approaches may not fully capture these dynamics. Comment 2: Uniqueness and Broader Applicability of the Study "As noted in the Discussion Sec., the findings from Ethiopia align with those from Kenya and the Middle East. Readers may be interested in understanding the uniqueness and broader applicability of this study. The research's distinctiveness should not be solely attributed to the choice of Ethiopia as the research site. This concern is related to my first point regarding the investigation of established factors influencing RM, as the significance of the research appears less pronounced. I suggest that the authors further explore the uniqueness of this study and its potential broader applicability in future research." Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We intend to: Clearly explain the reasoning behind choosing Ethiopia as the study setting, beyond geographic interest, by highlighting important contextual factors like Ethiopia's growing higher education sector, variations in research integrity policies, and differences in institutional oversight. This will help to strengthen the discussion of our study's uniqueness and wider implications. Highlight Ethiopia's distinctive contributions by going into detail about how its ethical, regulatory, and educational contexts differ from those of Kenya and the Middle East. By relating our findings to worldwide research integrity issues, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where comparable systemic problems may affect RM, we can bolster the conversation about the findings' wider applicability. Examine the possibility of doing cross-country comparative research in the future to learn more about the common and distinctive elements affecting RM in different settings. Comment 3: Literature Review & Hypotheses Development "The article exhibits certain limitations in research methodology, particularly concerning the formulation of research hypotheses. The manuscript lacks a dedicated literature review section; instead, it briefly presents current research on RM in the Middle East within the Introduction Sec. This approach does not adequately develop research hypotheses by considering existing literature, which should be followed by validation through the questionnaire. I recommend that the authors enhance the methodological rigor of this cross-sectional study by incorporating a more thorough review of relevant literature to inform the formulation of their research hypotheses." Response: We appreciate your insightful comments. We take note of your comment that there isn't a specific literature review section. However, a separate section for the literature review is not required nor provided by the journal's formatting guidelines. Rather, we have adhered to the journal's structure, which incorporates pertinent literature into the Introduction section. The following actions have been made to address this concern, even though the research has already been completed, and the hypotheses cannot be changed retroactively: Strengthening the Literature Review: In order to strengthen the theoretical underpinnings of our work, we have extended our review of pertinent literature in the introduction and discussion parts. This comprises supplementary sources that enhance the importance of our research inquiry and the rationale behind our hypotheses. Clarifying the Rationale for Hypotheses: To clearly show how the body of existing literature influenced the development of our hypotheses, we have updated the introduction. This ensures a clear articulation of the theoretical and empirical foundation for our research. Addressing Methodological Rigor in the Discussion Section: We acknowledge the shortcomings of our first literature review and have included a discussion of how a more thorough theoretical framework could be incorporated into future research to further improve the study design. Key concepts pertaining to research misconduct (RM), its different manifestations, contributing factors, global and regional prevalence (including studies from sub-Saharan Africa), and gaps in the literature—specifically, the lack of empirical studies on RM in Ethiopia—are covered in our Introduction. Additionally, we have added the Institutional Theory of Ethics and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to improve the methodological rigor of our cross-sectional study and overcome the inherent limitations of our quantitative approach. In order to make sure that our study hypotheses are supported by well-established theoretical and empirical foundations, this inclusion was led by pertinent literature. This strategy complies with the journal's format while guaranteeing that the background, current literature, and theoretical foundations are adequately covered. We value your opinions and are willing to make any necessary revisions to the Introduction to improve its cohesion and clarity. If you have any specific recommendations for how the literature should be included into the current framework, do let us know. Thank you for your insightful comments. We look forward to making the necessary revisions to our text and value any additional advice along the way. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 20 Jan 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 2 (revision) 20 Feb 25 read read Version 1 20 Jan 25 read read Wei Feng , Wuhan University, Wuhan, China Patrick Okonta , Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Feng W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 27 Feb 2025 | for Version 2 Wei Feng , Wuhan University, Wuhan, China 0 Views copyright © 2025 Feng W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions No further comments. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise research integrity I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 28 Feb 2025 Habtamu Belay Hailu, Ethiopian Defence University, Ethiopia We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your invaluable comments and insights have greatly contributed to strengthening our work. Thank you for your thorough evaluation and approval. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Feng W. Peer Review Report For: Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178141.r367774) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v2#referee-response-367774 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Okonta P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 22 Feb 2025 | for Version 2 Patrick Okonta , Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Delta State University, Abraka, Delta, P.O.Box 1031, Nigeria 0 Views copyright © 2025 Okonta P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors have responded to my earlier review comments and have appropriately revised the manuscript and offered satisfactory explanations to issues raised in my review comment . The manuscript is approved without reservation. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Research Ethics, bioethics, Maternal health, OBGYN I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 24 Feb 2025 Habtamu Belay Hailu, Ethiopian Defence University, Ethiopia Thank you for your time and thorough review of our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable feedback and are pleased that our revisions have addressed your comments satisfactorily. Your insights have helped us improve the quality of our work. Thank you again for your support and approval. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Okonta P. Peer Review Report For: Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178141.r367775) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v2#referee-response-367775 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Okonta P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 08 Feb 2025 | for Version 1 Patrick Okonta , Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Delta State University, Abraka, Delta, P.O.Box 1031, Nigeria 0 Views copyright © 2025 Okonta P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The study has as its objective 'to assess the magnitude of RM – as well as associated attitudes and factors – among faculty researchers conducting biomedical and epidemiological studies involving human participants in an academic institution in Ethiopia.' The topic is important especially in the context that it is the first of its kind in Ethiopia. Generally the manuscript is well written and the methods well described to make reproducibility of the study possible. However, the following issues /suggestions need to be addressed 1. Title. I would suggest inserting 'a' in front of 'Public University. 2. Abstract a) The aim of the study should be included either as a subheading or the second sentence in the Background subheading. b) The conclusion has to be completely revised as I suggests below 3. Method a) The variable 'Research experience' was measured by the number of years in an academic post. I wonder why the 'number of publications/scholarly works' was not used as a more appropriate marker for research experience? 4. Results a) Table 2 is not in the manuscript. b) Page 8- The sentence, 'A Chi-Square test showed significant associations with a p-value of less than 0.05' has to be expanded to make it complete and self explanatory. c) I suggest further analysis on Authorship misconduct should be provided to determine which of the 3 types studied was associated with more years of research experience. Conclusion. The conclusion as stated does not derive from this particular study or related to the objective of the study as stated by the Authors. The conclusion is too generic and very broad without any specific link to either the results from this study or the stated objectives of the study. It should be completely re-written. In addition, since there was no significant difference in research misconduct between those that had prior training in ethics and those who did not, I wonder the basis for the recommendation of educational interventions in the conclusion Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? No Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Research Ethics, bioethics, Maternal health, OBGYN I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 20 Feb 2025 Habtamu Belay Hailu, Ethiopian Defence University, Ethiopia Dear Prof. Okonta, We are deeply grateful for your time and insightful comments on our publication, "Magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional survey." Your observations have given us valuable input on how to improve our study's impact, rigor, and clarity. We address each of your suggestions and describe the upcoming changes below. 1. Title Comment: I would suggest inserting 'a' in front of 'Public University.' Response: We appreciate your suggestion. The recommended change will be included in the upcoming manuscript version. 2. Abstract a) The aim of the study should be included either as a subheading or the second sentence in the Background subheading. Response: We agree that the abstract should clearly convey the purpose of the research. In the upcoming document, we will make sure that the aim is stated explicitly in the abstract's Background section. b) The conclusion has to be completely revised as I suggest below. Response: Thank you for the recommendation. We will update the conclusion to reflect the study's findings and make sure it appropriately captures the main findings. 3. Method a) The variable 'Research experience' was measured by the number of years in an academic post. I wonder why the 'number of publications/scholarly works' was not used as a more appropriate marker for research experience? Response: Thank you for this thoughtful comment. For a number of reasons, we chose to gauge research experience by the number of years spent in an academic position, even though the number of publications or scholarly works is undoubtedly a significant predictor of research production. As you perfectly know, research experience is not limited to publication output; rather, it includes more extensive tasks like research design, grant writing, mentorship, peer review, and using ethical judgment. In situations when publishing prospects are impacted by institutional, disciplinary, or systemic considerations, scholars with substantial research experience may have made major contributions to the field without necessarily having a high number of publications. Second, publication counts may be a potentially inconsistent indicator of experience due to a variety of external factors that do not necessarily reflect research experience, such as disparities in disciplinary norms (e.g., fields with shorter publication timelines versus those with longer research cycles), institutional support, and research funding availability. Predatory publishing, honorary authorship, and publication pressure can also inflate publication counts without necessarily reflecting true research expertise. Last but not least, gauging research experience by years spent in an academic position is consistent with earlier studies looking at research integrity and misconduct. Since academic tenure captures exposure to research-related activities outside of publications, it is frequently used as a stand-in for accumulated experience in studies. We do, however, recognize the value of considering the number of publications or academic works as a substitute or supplementary indicator of research experience. We will take this into account when determining the study's limitations and recommend it as an area for further investigation. 4. Results a) Table 2 is not in the manuscript. Response : We appreciate your observation. Due to its size, Table 2 was excluded from the main text per the editor's recommendation. With a clear reference given in the manuscript's Underlying Data section, it is now accessible through the Zenodo repository. To help readers appropriately, we will make sure that this is stated clearly in the pertinent passages of the text. b) Page 8 – The sentence, 'A Chi-Square test showed significant associations with a p-value of less than 0.05' has to be expanded to make it complete and self-explanatory. Response: We agree that further clarification is necessary. We will revise this section to provide a more detailed explanation of the statistical analysis and results. c) I suggest further analysis on authorship misconduct to determine which of the three types studied was associated with more years of research experience. Response: In response to your recommendation that authorship misconduct be further examined in relation to research experience, we performed a binary logistic regression analysis to investigate the relationship between research experience and the three distinct types of authorship misconduct evaluated in our study. The findings showed that, when examined as a composite measure, overall authorship misconduct demonstrated a significant relationship with research experience, but none of the individual types of authorship misconduct demonstrated a statistically significant association with research experience. This result draws attention to crucial factors pertaining to the statistical model's type and the data's structure. First, since certain types of authorship breaches may be context-dependent or rare, the lack of significance in individual models may be explained by the statistical power limitations of examining each type of misbehavior independently. On the other hand, the composite measure combines several aspects of authorship misbehavior, which makes the dataset more variable and enhances the model's capacity to identify a general correlation with research experience. Furthermore, this finding might be indicative of a larger pattern in behavior, where exposure to or participation in various types of authorship misconduct is influenced by research experience rather than just one type. A larger chance of coming across or taking part in several types of authorship misconduct may result from the more complicated authorship negotiations, institutional pressures, and collaborative dynamics that experienced researchers may confront. Research experience may determine overall authorship practices rather than individual transgressions, as indicated by the substantial connection seen in the composite measure. Additionally, logistic regression makes the assumption that the log-odds of the result and the predictor variable have a linear connection. Research experience and particular types of authorship misconduct may have a non-linear relationship or be impacted by unquantifiable moderating factors like the field of study, research culture, or institutional policies. The composite score may more accurately reflect the underlying relationship between research experience and authorship integrity overall since it covers a larger spectrum of misbehavior behaviors. We value your suggestion since it has helped us develop a deeper comprehension of the connection between authorship dishonesty and research experience. 5. Conclusion Comment: The conclusion as stated does not derive from this particular study or relate to the objective of the study as stated by the authors. The conclusion is too generic and very broad without any specific link to either the results from this study or the stated objectives of the study. It should be completely rewritten. In addition, since there was no significant difference in research misconduct between those that had prior training in ethics and those who did not, I wonder the basis for the recommendation of educational interventions in the conclusion. Response: Your critical evaluation of the conclusion section is greatly appreciated. To make sure it directly reflects the aims and findings of the study, we will carefully edit it. In addition, we will reconsider the rationale behind suggesting educational interventions in view of the findings. We appreciate your insightful comments and will take the recommendations into consideration. Our manuscript's impact, rigor, and clarity will all be improved by these modifications. We appreciate you taking the time and using your expertise to review our work. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Okonta P. Peer Review Report For: Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175799.r361207) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v1#referee-response-361207 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Feng W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 07 Feb 2025 | for Version 1 Wei Feng , Wuhan University, Wuhan, China 0 Views copyright © 2025 Feng W. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. This cross-sectional study investigates the extent of research misconduct (RM) among researchers in Ethiopia’s academic and research institutions using a structured questionnaire. Some findings are particularly intriguing, such as the lack of significant statistical correlation between ethics education and RM. However, I have three primary concerns I would like to discuss with the authors. Firstly, the authors examined behavioral influences on responsible conduct in research and explored factors associated with RM composites. While the selected factors appear relevant to RM, the authors do not delve deeply into why these factors may influence RM. This oversight may represent a limitation of the quantitative approach and raises questions for scholars engaged in qualitative research. Therefore, I recommend that the authors provide a more comprehensive explanation of these influencing factors, taking into account the educational and cultural context of Ethiopia, as well as relevant existing theories. Secondly, as noted in the Discussion Sec., the findings from Ethiopia align with those from Kenya and the Middle East. Readers may be interested in understanding the uniqueness and broader applicability of this study. The research's distinctiveness should not be solely attributed to the choice of Ethiopia as the research site. This concern is related to my first point regarding the investigation of established factors influencing RM, as the significance of the research appears less pronounced. I suggest that the authors further explore the uniqueness of this study and its potential broader applicability in future research. Thirdly, the article exhibits certain limitations in research methodology, particularly concerning the formulation of research hypotheses. The manuscript lacks a dedicated literature review section; instead, it briefly presents current research on RM in the Middle East within the Introduction Sec. This approach does not adequately develop research hypotheses by considering existing literature, which should be followed by validation through the questionnaire. I recommend that the authors enhance the methodological rigor of this cross-sectional study by incorporating a more thorough review of relevant literature to inform the formulation of their research hypotheses. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. Feng W, Zhou L, Xiao J: Beyond the traditional: Extending academic libraries’ roles in research integrity based on the causes of research misconduct. The Journal of Academic Librarianship . 2024; 50 (3). Publisher Full Text 2. Davis MS, Riske-Morris M, Diaz SR: Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: evidence from ORI case files. Sci Eng Ethics . 2007; 13 (4): 395-414 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. Sovacool B: Exploring Scientific Misconduct: Isolated Individuals, Impure Institutions, or an Inevitable Idiom of Modern Science?. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry . 2008; 5 (4): 271-282 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise research integrity I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 20 Feb 2025 Habtamu Belay Hailu, Ethiopian Defence University, Ethiopia Dear Ms. Feng, We greatly appreciate your time and critical input on our publication, "Magnitude and factors associated with research misconduct at a public university in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional survey." Your contributions are crucial in improving the clarity, rigor, and contextual relevance of our research. Below, we present a point-by-point response to your comments and detail how we plan to resolve them in the upcoming updates. Comment 1: Exploration of Factors Influencing RM "The authors examined behavioral influences on responsible conduct in research and explored factors associated with RM composites. While the selected factors appear relevant to RM, the authors do not delve deeply into why these factors may influence RM. This oversight may represent a limitation of the quantitative approach and raises questions for scholars engaged in qualitative research. Therefore, I recommend that the authors provide a more comprehensive explanation of these influencing factors, taking into account the educational and cultural context of Ethiopia, as well as relevant existing theories." Response: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We realize the necessity for a more in-depth examination of the mechanisms underpinning chosen factors' influence on RM. In next versions, we aim to expand the Discussion Section to investigate how research ethics training, institutional rules, and individual ethical views impact RM. Use behavioral and ethical theories, such as Rest's Four-Component Model of Moral Behavior and the Theory of Planned Behavior, to establish a theoretical basis for these influences. Contextualize our findings in Ethiopia's research and higher education landscape, including resource restrictions, academic pressure, and institutional control. Suggest qualitative studies to better understand the motivations and pressures shaping RM, as quantitative approaches may not fully capture these dynamics. Comment 2: Uniqueness and Broader Applicability of the Study "As noted in the Discussion Sec., the findings from Ethiopia align with those from Kenya and the Middle East. Readers may be interested in understanding the uniqueness and broader applicability of this study. The research's distinctiveness should not be solely attributed to the choice of Ethiopia as the research site. This concern is related to my first point regarding the investigation of established factors influencing RM, as the significance of the research appears less pronounced. I suggest that the authors further explore the uniqueness of this study and its potential broader applicability in future research." Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We intend to: Clearly explain the reasoning behind choosing Ethiopia as the study setting, beyond geographic interest, by highlighting important contextual factors like Ethiopia's growing higher education sector, variations in research integrity policies, and differences in institutional oversight. This will help to strengthen the discussion of our study's uniqueness and wider implications. Highlight Ethiopia's distinctive contributions by going into detail about how its ethical, regulatory, and educational contexts differ from those of Kenya and the Middle East. By relating our findings to worldwide research integrity issues, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where comparable systemic problems may affect RM, we can bolster the conversation about the findings' wider applicability. Examine the possibility of doing cross-country comparative research in the future to learn more about the common and distinctive elements affecting RM in different settings. Comment 3: Literature Review & Hypotheses Development "The article exhibits certain limitations in research methodology, particularly concerning the formulation of research hypotheses. The manuscript lacks a dedicated literature review section; instead, it briefly presents current research on RM in the Middle East within the Introduction Sec. This approach does not adequately develop research hypotheses by considering existing literature, which should be followed by validation through the questionnaire. I recommend that the authors enhance the methodological rigor of this cross-sectional study by incorporating a more thorough review of relevant literature to inform the formulation of their research hypotheses." Response: We appreciate your insightful comments. We take note of your comment that there isn't a specific literature review section. However, a separate section for the literature review is not required nor provided by the journal's formatting guidelines. Rather, we have adhered to the journal's structure, which incorporates pertinent literature into the Introduction section. The following actions have been made to address this concern, even though the research has already been completed, and the hypotheses cannot be changed retroactively: Strengthening the Literature Review: In order to strengthen the theoretical underpinnings of our work, we have extended our review of pertinent literature in the introduction and discussion parts. This comprises supplementary sources that enhance the importance of our research inquiry and the rationale behind our hypotheses. Clarifying the Rationale for Hypotheses: To clearly show how the body of existing literature influenced the development of our hypotheses, we have updated the introduction. This ensures a clear articulation of the theoretical and empirical foundation for our research. Addressing Methodological Rigor in the Discussion Section: We acknowledge the shortcomings of our first literature review and have included a discussion of how a more thorough theoretical framework could be incorporated into future research to further improve the study design. Key concepts pertaining to research misconduct (RM), its different manifestations, contributing factors, global and regional prevalence (including studies from sub-Saharan Africa), and gaps in the literature—specifically, the lack of empirical studies on RM in Ethiopia—are covered in our Introduction. Additionally, we have added the Institutional Theory of Ethics and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to improve the methodological rigor of our cross-sectional study and overcome the inherent limitations of our quantitative approach. In order to make sure that our study hypotheses are supported by well-established theoretical and empirical foundations, this inclusion was led by pertinent literature. This strategy complies with the journal's format while guaranteeing that the background, current literature, and theoretical foundations are adequately covered. We value your opinions and are willing to make any necessary revisions to the Introduction to improve its cohesion and clarity. If you have any specific recommendations for how the literature should be included into the current framework, do let us know. Thank you for your insightful comments. We look forward to making the necessary revisions to our text and value any additional advice along the way. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Feng W. Peer Review Report For: Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :111 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.175799.r362165) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v1#referee-response-362165 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Belay Hailu H et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111", templates : { twitter : "Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at.... Belay Hailu H et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-111/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/159997/178141") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "178141"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "361216": 0, "362165": 18, "361207": 13, "361213": 0, "361212": 0, "361215": 0, "367775": 14, "361214": 0, "367774": 6, "361209": 0, "361208": 0, "361211": 0, "361210": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "840a0b72-859b-43fb-be87-2eebee7ca1d3"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });