Strides in Development of Medical Education

Document Type : Original Article


Specialist in Community Medicine, Associate Professor of Community Medicine Dept., Physiology Research Center , Kerman University of Medical sciences, Kerman, Iran


Background & Objective: The number of research misconduct cases seems to be increasing so the need for developing a disciplinary charter of research misconduct is felt more than ever This study was aimed to propose and develop a charter to determine types of research misconduct and dealing with them Methods: In this qualitative study three consensus rounds were conducted Each round consisted of five to six qualified experts with related specialties They included one member of academic staff with sufficient experience in research management two experts in professional ethics and two experts in legal affairs Each session lasted for 15 to 2 hours Based on an extensive literature review and personal experiences the different types of research misconduct were extracted in the first two sessions and in the third round agreement on classification of research misconduct was made Results: In general 49 types of research misconduct were explored and defined including 17 mild 22 moderate and 10 severe ones B ased on the severity of each type an appropriate penalty like verbal warnings and summons to early retirement with reduced payment base was determined Finally the expert panel made some comments Conclusion: The results of this study revealed different types of research misconduct and dealing with them Such an understanding can lead to a better design of national charters compatible with Iranian culture and it can also be as a base for preventive interventions


  1. Claxton LD. Scientific authorship: Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutat Res 2005; 589 (1): 31-45.
  2. Claxton LD. Scientific authorship: Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutat Res 2005; 589 (1): 15-30.
  3. Osareh F, Wilson CS. Collaboration in Iranian scientific publications. Libri 2002; 52: 88-98.
  4. Habibi G, Rashidi A, Feldman MD. Emerging concerns about Iran’s scientific and medical future. Lancet 2006; 368 (9540): 985.
  5. Butler D. Iranian paper sparks sense of déjà vu. Lancet 2008; 455(7216): 1019.
  6. Professors against plagiarism, 2009; Available From: URL: http//: www. profsagainst- plagiarism. BlogSpot. Com. [In Persian]
  7. Meshorer E. Iran is sixth, not second, in Middle East publication list. Nature 2006; 44 (7109): 271.
  8. Ravanshad M, Mahboudi F, Sabahi F, Bayanolhagh S. Indeterminate human immunodeficiency virus western blot results in Iranian patients with discordant screening assay results. Saudi Med J 2006; 27(8): 1130-3.
  9. POISE Study Group, effects of extendedrelease metoprolol succinct in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (POISE trial): A randomized controlled trial (Web appendix 1: Quality control procedures). Available From:URL: = Article URL&_udi= B6T1B4SGXYN6-d0.
  10. Bolton PA. Scientific ethics, 2008; Available From: URL:
  11. Gilbert FJ, Denison AR. Research misconduct. Clin Radiol 2003; 58 (7): 499-504.
  12. Ranstam J, Buyse M, George SL, Evans S, Geller NL, Scherrer B, et al. Fraud in medical research: An international survey of biostatisticians. Cont Clin Trials 2000; 21(5): 415-27.
  13. Lock S. Lessons from the Pearce affair: Handling scientific fraud. BMJ 1995; 310 (6994): 1547-8.
  14. Zittrain J. Saving the internet. Harv Bus Rev. 2007; 85 (6): 49-59.
  15. Nakhaee N, Nikpour H. The study of medical students working in deception research thesis and frequency of compiling it. SDME 2005; 2 (1): 10-7. [In Persian]
  16. Eysenbach G. Medical students see that academic misconduct is common. BMJ 2001; 322 (97297): 1307.
  17. Alpher H. How can research integrity be best achieved? Materials Today 2008; 11(4): 60.
  18. The COPE Report 1999. Guidelines on good publication practice. Hum Reprod 2001; 16(8): 1783-8.
  19. Ethical conduct of research and research misconduct, 2007; Available From:
  20. The University of New South Wales. Procedures for handling allegations of research misconduct, 2009; Available from:http:// procedure/handling_ allegations_of_ research_misconduct.pdf
  21. The University of Manchester, code of practice for dealing with complaints of misconduct in research, 2008. Available From: URL: policies/ allegationsmisconduct-research.pdf
  22. Office of Reach Integrity (ORI), 2009. Available From: URL: http:// www. miscon duct.
  23. Engleman Hall, Wing A, Room A. Graduate studies Office of Reach Integrity (ORI), 2009; Available From:
  24. Farhadi A. Advanced human resource management. 1st ed. Tehran: Management Medicine Institute of Idea Development; 2007. [In Persian]
  25. Jones J, Hunter D. Qualitative research: Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 1995; 311(7001):376-80.
  26. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin A, Brook RA. Consensus methods: Characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 1984; 74 (9):979-83
  27. Vella K, Goldfrad C, Rowan K, Bion J, Black N. Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care. BMJ 2000; 320 (7240): 976-80.
  28. Penslar RL. Research ethics: Cases and materials. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1995.