This article is part of the network’s archive of useful research information. This article is closed to new comments due to inactivity. We welcome new content which can be done by submitting an article for review or take part in discussions in an open topic or submit a blog post to take your discussions online.


Ana J, Koehlmoos T, Smith R, Yan LL

Research misconduct is a global problem as research is a global activity. Wherever there is human activity there is misconduct. But we lack reliable data on the extent and distribution of research misconduct, and few countries have mounted a comprehensive response to misconduct that includes programmes of prevention, investigation, punishment, and correction. The United States, the Scandinavian countries, and Germany have formal programmes [1], but even a country like the United Kingdom that has a long research tradition and has for years been debating research misconduct has failed to mount an adequate response [2]. But what of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), many of which are investing heavily in research? There are some high profile cases of misconduct from these countries, but little has been published on research misconduct in LMICs. This article provides what might best be described as an initial sketch of research misconduct in LMICs. (Research misconduct has a specific definition, in the United States [see below], but we, like many others, use the term broadly in this paper to cover every kind of misconduct—major or minor and intentional or not.)

Summary Points:
•All human activity is associated with misconduct, and as scientific research is a global activity, research misconduct is a global problem.
•Studies conducted mostly in high-income countries suggest that 2%–14% of scientists may have fabricated or falsified data and that a third to three-quarters may be guilty of “questionable research practices.”
•The few data available from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) suggest that research misconduct is as common there as in high-income countries, and there have been high profile cases of misconduct from LMICs.
•A comprehensive response to misconduct should include programmes of prevention, investigation, punishment, and correction, and arguably no country has a comprehensive response, although the US, the Scandinavian Countries, and Germany have formal programmes.
•China has created an Office of Scientific Research Integrity Construction and begun a comprehensive response to research misconduct, but most LMICs have yet to mount a response.

Joseph Ana.


You can view the full article by downloading it from the right hand side of the screen in pdf format, or visiting the hyperlink to view the full article and citation online at the PLoS library.

Read full article here:



  1. PLoS Med 10(3): e1001315. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001315