Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41525269›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

The 'shades of grey' in research integrity-Researchers admit to questionable research practices that they do not perceive to be serious.

Marta Entradas, Yan Feng, Inês Carneiro E Sousa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marta EntradasCies-Center for Research and Studies in Sociology, Iscte-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (Iscte-IUL), Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7146-9912
Yan FengCies-Center for Research and Studies in Sociology, Iscte-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (Iscte-IUL), Lisbon, Portugal.
Inês Carneiro E SousaCies-Center for Research and Studies in Sociology, Iscte-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (Iscte-IUL), Lisbon, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research misconduct practices like fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) are serious deviations from good research conduct, which have attracted attention in the literature due to the damage they can bring to science and society. However, less is known about the grey zone of researchers' behaviours that deviate from responsible research conduct but do not fall under serious research misconduct practices. These are known as questionable research practices (QRPs), and they are believed to pose a no less serious threat to research integrity and science. Despite increasing research on the topic, the extent of the problem in different research fields and contexts is unknown. Using a sample of researchers working in Portuguese universities in six main fields of research (n = 1573), we report on QRPs that researchers admit to and how serious they perceive them to be, and on predictors of engagement in QRPs. We find that QRPs are widespread across all fields of research and seniority levels. Yet, younger, more prolific researchers, and those dismissing the seriousness of QRPs admitted to more QRPs. This suggests that some groups are at higher risk of misconduct and that there is a need for studying the motivations behind more susceptible groups to engage in QRPs.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchResearch PersonnelScientific MisconductAcademiaHumansPlagiarismPortugal

Identifiers

PMID41525269
PMCPMC12795355

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.