Scientific integrity: Perceptions and recommendations from a qualitative study with actors of the science,technology,and innovation system in Colombia

Abstract

The review of the scientific literature has provided evidence of the presence of scientific misconduct and questionable conduct in research (QCR), without further studies in different countries, including Colombia. This study aims to provide results of qualitative research on the perceptions and recommendations associated with scientific integrity in the country. Interviews were conducted with researchers, peer reviewers, editors and research directors or managers of universities and research centers in the country. The results reveal the need to promote institutional policies and improve practices that help strengthen the national policy on scientific integrity. A strong correlation was also found between misconduct, lack of knowledge of authorship criteria, difficulties in peer review, research data management and the processes of research memory due to the pressure of the national research system and the institutions to meet goals within it.

Introduction

The different models on ethics in scientific research show how the approach from the ethics committees and the ethical approval of research is one of the fundamental elements of this system that requires generating spaces that promote scientific integrity as an aspect of the responsible conduct of each of its actors, in order to prevent, investigate, sanction and correct bad scientific practices.

Scientific integrity has become a growing concern in academic and research communities worldwide, as various forms of misconduct and questionable research practices (QRP) continue to undermine the credibility of scientific knowledge. While much of the existing literature has documented such issues in global contexts, there remains a significant gap in qualitative research focused on local experiences and perceptions, particularly in countries like Colombia. This article, seeks to address this gap by exploring how key stakeholders in the Colombian research ecosystem—researchers, peer reviewers, journal editors, and research administrators—perceive and respond to issues of scientific misconduct. Through in-depth interviews, this study sheds light on the structural and institutional challenges that influence research behavior and offers context-specific recommendations to strengthen the country’s scientific integrity framework.

Research ethics and moral philosophy

Integrity in research is linked to values such as honesty, trustworthiness, objectivity, and adherence to rules. Scientific integrity is closely tied to the different approaches within moral philosophy, including utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. Utilitarianism, or consequentialism, focuses on maximizing benefit and minimizing harm through a cost-benefit analysis (Suri, 2020). In the context of research, this might translate to striving to produce research that benefits the largest number of people.

Deontology, on the other hand, emphasizes that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. This translates into adherence to principles such as beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and respect for autonomy (Koali et al., 2024). From a deontological perspective, scientific integrity and research ethics demands that researchers uphold the rights and dignity of participants, obtain informed consent, and avoid causing harm, even if doing so might reduce the potential benefits of the research. A deontological model emphasizes on the obligations of truth-telling and honesty to enhance public trust and respect for humanity. In this perspective, Kant’s categorical imperative disallows treating persons as means to an end and promotes self-regulation to conform with ethics guidelines (Koali et al., 2024).

Virtue ethics shifts the focus from actions and rules to the character and moral dispositions of the researcher. It posits that a researcher of integrity should possess virtues such as honesty, trustworthiness, courage, care, and practical wisdom. Virtue ethics suggests that by cultivating these virtues, researchers will be more inclined to act ethically and maintain integrity in their work (Koali et al., 2024). This approach emphasizes the importance of moral education and the development of the researcher as a person, as opposed to merely training in research methodology and ethics compliance (Banks, 2018).

A philosophical approach to the scientific integrity and research ethics, for instance from the theories mentioned – utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics – can inform ethical decision-making in research, the effectiveness of ethics training and cultivating virtue ethics and a sense of duty among researchers.

Scientific integrity, scientific misconduct, and moral philosophy

In countries with economic limited resources, one of the perceived problems is that researchers particularly are not trained in principles and processes that guarantee responsible conduct in research and when they come into contact with the scientific community, they require formal instruction and guidance in this area in order to avoid early malpractices that may later lead to scientific misconduct (Lescano, 2019). According to the United States National Academy of Sciences, scientific integrity involves adherence to eight essential practices, one of them mentoring, defined as an indispensable process in order to ensure scientific integrity, particularly in researchers still in the process of training.

Young researchers are not trained in these principles and processes and upon contact with the scientific community require formal instruction and guidance in this area in order to avoid early malpractice that can lead to later scientific misconduct (DuBois, 2013). However, the practice of mentoring is not well established in developing regions, and there are no models for its implementation within the resources and idiosyncrasies of these regions (Lescano, 2019).

In this context, scientific misconduct, encompassing actions like fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and guest authorship, represents a deviation from research norms driven by motives that undermine integrity. Philosophical theories offer lenses through which to understand and address such misconduct. Consequentialism would evaluate misconduct based on its outcomes, potentially justifying it if the “ends” (e.g., career advancement, securing funding) were deemed to outweigh the “means” (dishonest practices) – an approach that compromises scientific validity and public trust (Suri, 2020). Deontology, with its emphasis on moral duties and rules, unequivocally condemns misconduct as a violation of principles like honesty and respect for intellectual property, regardless of the intended outcome. Virtue ethics emphasizes that misconduct arises from a deficiency in moral character, highlighting the absence of virtues such as honesty, trustworthiness, and intellectual courage, which are essential for responsible research conduct4. Therefore, addressing misconduct necessitates fostering these virtues through ethics training and promoting a research culture that values integrity over expediency (Koali, 2024).

Preventing scientific misconduct

In many cases, countries and research institutions seek to design and implement guidelines, rules or standards related to scientific integrity and research ethics. This Ethics codes and research ethics guidelines often draw upon rights-based theories, ethics of care, and considerations of power dynamics. These codes emphasize principles such as beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, honesty, and respect for human rights. In this sense, philosophical theories provide frameworks for navigating ethical decision-making in research.

For instance, in the Colombian context, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has been led a process of national dialogue to the design of inputs and policies aligned with the issues of research ethics and scientific integrity. The result was the Resolution 0314 of 2018, through which a policy of research ethics, bioethics and scientific integrity was adopted, which in principle links the different actors that are part of the national system of science, technology and innovation.

The adoption of this policy, leads us to raise a series of questions that contribute to a main question related: to what are the strategies, activities and indicators that are required in the Colombian System of Scientific Research and Innovation to make effective the implementation of the national policy of scientific integrity that promotes responsible conduct in research? The questions that precede this main approach are: What are the actors, their knowledge, roles and perspectives related to responsible conduct in research? What have been the institutional governance strategies, if any, to make the scientific integrity policy effective in Colombia? What are the needs and what are the strategies designed, as well as their impact, in terms of training in research ethics and scientific integrity?

Methods

The protocol was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) of Pontificia Universidad Javeriana – Cali (PUJ-Cali). IRB approved the protocol on August 26th, 2019. All participants gave informed consent prior to participation. The study was conducted according to the international and national research ethics principles.

This qualitative study to document difficulties, limitations, barriers, duties and strategies related to scientific integrity in research, was done through in-depth interviews with national researchers and editors, who belong to Higher Education Institutions (HEI) and research centers in Colombia. The research team established the following categories of analysis: (1) General issues on research and research ethics; (2) Generalities on scientific integrity and responsible conduct in research; 3.

The data collection period took place between August 2021 and August 2022. Approval by the IRB of one of the project’s partner institutions was issued in August 2019.

The interviews were conducted with researchers who participated in training scenarios on scientific integrity issues, in the scientific integrity and research ethics roundtables previously organized by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation and who have participated. The interviews with editors were carried out taking into consideration editors from different disciplines and from journals with A1 and A2 classification according to the Colombian publindex system. The first interviewees referred to other researchers and editors as qualified participants for the subject matter of the interviews. Twenty-one interviews were conducted taking as a criterion the saturation of information provided by the interviewees.

The interviews were conducted through the zoom video-call platform of the account paid for by one of the participating institutions, which provided greater guarantees of security and confidentiality between interviewee-participants. In each session, the research protocol, the conditions of confidentiality of the information, the permission to record the session, the authorization to share the audio for transcription purposes and the guarantees of post-transcription video and audio destruction were widely and sufficiently explained. We completed the interviews in nearly 30 sessions of approximately 1 h each in average.

After the consent to participate, the interviews and their transcription, the interviews were coded. The codes were:

• Editor = EDIT following by the number according to sequence 1–8

• Researcher = RESCH following by the number according to sequence 1–11

The interviews were analyzed with MAXQDA (version 2022). The transcripts were open coded to extract thematic constructs from the six previously defined categories and their corresponding subcategories. Researchers discussed among themselves to resolve coding differences.

The resulting codes were (Figure 1):

Figure 1.

General category codes.

Results

Of the 21 researchers interviewed, 57.1% identified with the male gender and 42.9% with the non-male gender; 61.9% to HEIs or centers in the private sector and 38.1% in the public sector. The main institutions and centers of affiliation of the interviewees are in the cities of Bogotá (33.3%), Cali (28.6%), Medellín (14.3%) Bucaramanga (9.5%) Cartagena (4.8%) and Tunja (4.8%).

The age of the study participants was 30–35 (4.8%), 36–45 (52.4%), 46–55 (28.6%) and over 55 years of age (14.3%). It was observed that 100% reported being familiar with or at least having heard of the category of scientific integrity in the context of their scientific work and 33% referred to some personal conceptual approach to the subject.

The perceptions and opinions shared by editors, researchers and directors or heads of research in higher education institutions and public or private research centers, were organized into codes and subcategories, as follows;

Generalities of scientific integrity (SI) and responsible conduct in research (RCR), promotion and suitable environments

• a.  Resistance to adopt and appropriate institutional policies on scientific integrity. Reference was made to scientific research not limited to the publication of scientific articles and may include the creation of medical devices, improvement of protocols and contribution to public policies. In these contexts, resistance to regulations and lack of dialogue between ethics committees, scientific integrity officers and researchers have been noted.

We had to deal with many researchers who had already been working for a long time, let’s say, against many difficulties, and then suddenly a whole series of regulations appeared, a series of indications that the research had to comply with bioethical principles, and then there was resistance (RESCH8).

• b. Research ethics and scientific integrity, related but distinct concepts: although they are two closely related concepts, they are not the same. Also, the responsibilities of actors such as ethics committees or research directors are different in one field and the other. However, not all interviewees are clear on these concepts, their relationships and the role of the directors and stakeholders.

we have a central bioethics committee that says some aspects of how bioethics training should be conducted at the University, some consultations can be made, but its decision-making capacity is null, that is, if one poses an ethical challenge with a research project that exceeds the competencies of any committee, that instance is not capable of assuming it and deciding (RESCH8).

• c. Promotion of environments of scientific integrity and responsible conduct. During the interviews conducted, there was evidence of abuse of power. These can manifest themselves in various ways, such as lack of transparency in the communication of results, biased selection of data, or undue pressure to modify results for particular interests. The consequences of inappropriate environments erode confidence in research results and undermine the credibility of science in general.

We now realize that there is also exploitation, many professors, of younger researchers (EDIT8).

many professors develop projects with undergraduate or graduate students and then submit their work for publication in journals without the participation of the student who developed part of that work or those results (EDIT7).

Likewise, there are different external and internal factors that hinder the promotion of Scientific Integrity and Responsible Conduct in Research, among them the lack of knowledge and the lack of specific training on these topics

if there are faults against scientific integrity in the institution, it is sometimes due to omission or also ignorance, we have to recognize, because there are many researchers who still do it unfortunately due to ignorance or omission of many faults to that scientific integrity (RESCH7).

there is often no clarity on these issues and it is possible that many of these problems may be in good faith on the part of the researchers who may not recognize that these are failures, that these are ethical problems (EDIT2).

On this point, it should be noted that overcoming barriers and difficulties in the promotion of scientific integrity requires the active role of the institutions and centers that carry out research. To this end, the different levels of education and training must be involved,

But first of all, it should be a culture, an institutional and national culture in these areas. Because it is not only the researcher who must have scientific integrity and responsible conduct, it is also the manager, it is also the organizational part of the company or of the institution, of the University, of whatever institution, I think it has to be a transversality and it has to permeate the whole curriculum (RESCH7).

the issue of scientific integrity should not only be limited to researchers, but should also be open to the undergraduate level, because our future graduates or our future professionals will somehow be related to ethical, scientific and legal actions so that they should know the impacts and what are the best practices (RESCH4).

• d. Responsibilities of the State and institutions. Likewise, the role of institutional policies was highlighted as a natural scenario to articulate, develop and ground national policies on scientific integrity and responsible conduct in research.

I believe that each institution, independently of a national policy, should start from a general policy and develop much more localized policies, precisely because each institution also has its own peculiarities, its own history, its own community with which it interacts, its own research interests (RESCH)).

I think that there should be a work, which I would think should be articulated by the Ministry of Science, establishing policies as it has done in other elements, such as open science and others, in the same sense, there should be something related to scientific integrity, which we have totally neglected (EDIT11).

• e. Research environment. In this framework of promoting good practices and responsible conduct in research, the need and commitment to generate environments, settings or contexts that are conducive to fostering a culture of scientific integrity is highlighted.

we need environments that allow supervision, traceability, that review the traceability of studies and that, just as ethical aspects in relation to the protection of human or non-human animal participants are important, I believe that supervision in terms, that traceability in terms of integrity from the time knowledge is produced, until it is peer reviewed, until it is published, I believe that these elements of supervision are important (RESCH3).

Scientific misconduct

Reasons or factors for committing QCR. According to some of the interviewees, the reasons for committing QCR may include professional pressure. Others referred to economic motivations, professional and personal ambition, and lack of knowledge about research ethics and integrity.

It may be due to pressure, pressure to obtain results and not only results, but expected results or significant results, so to speak positively, that is, because there may be significant results on the other side of what we expected and with the idea that success in our research is given by the fulfillment of the hypotheses we set out and if that is not fulfilled, then there is a certain feeling of frustration (RESCH3).

Sanctions for scientific misconduct

Rather than punitive sanctions, emphasis was placed on pedagogical sanctions and prevention activities.

We are a culture very focused on punitive and little on preventive activities, so if I am not being sanctioned, we will not possibly care, so I think that these sanctions are important (RESCH3).

I think it would be more at a scientific level, right? because the important thing is that in some way this does not continue to happen and more than fines, I think that this is not going to solve or give a real awareness (RESCH5).

Authorship and publications

There is a lack of knowledge regarding the criteria for authorship, which has a direct impact on their fulfillment.

the first thing is that these criteria are not known, you see. . . I was not aware of them. . . that is, people are not really aware of this (EDIT3).

In the interviews it was mentioned that there are cases in which it is paid to publish in well-ranked journals and that this can accelerate the publication process. They also referred to the problem of citing other researchers only for quantitative reasons (citation index) and the exchange of authorship to improve academic visibility.

I have seen many researchers publishing two and three articles in Q1 per week and I wonder at what times? I mean, does this gentleman really sleep, does he? We know that in many cases, he is an expert in a specific area, he makes very specific contributions, but he is not soaked in all the work, in all the study, but also, he is a sacred cow, so how can we not include him among the main authors? (RESCH3).

The problem of “cronyism” and authorship theft was mentioned less frequently. Finally, some editors reported the problem of submitting a manuscript to several journals at the same time.

Unfortunately, in Colombia, the authors are generally senior researchers who put their name on the manuscript and drag others into the publication. First, because they already have the status of senior researcher, then a journal accepts them, for them it is much better for a senior researcher to be there (RESCH6).

To overcome these difficulties and questionable practices, there is a common line about the importance and the role of previous agreements among the participants of research projects, including students.

One of the solutions that have been given worldwide for many years and appear in the instructions to the authors is that the authors can also choose to send with the article a description of what each of them did, so they put -Such name was in charge of the design, the duration of the research, data collection, analysis, the other did such and such- Then one looks there who participated in everything and that is put at the end of the article, it is put with the initials of each author and says What did they do? (EDIT9).

Peer review

Difficulties of the evaluation process

One of the main difficulties pointed out by the participants is related to the lack of incentives for reviewers, who often have to do this work without any compensation.

as an editor, one sometimes finds it difficult to find peers because in most countries this work is not recognized by anyone, it is a very time-consuming job and no one recognizes it either financially or in terms of a scale or points or a science system (EDIT2).

Mention was made of the possibility of bias in the ratings due to the lack of disciplinary experience of the reviewers, the subjectivity of the evaluation and the limitation of the institutions in the choice of peers.

peer reviewers, of course, who have not received specific training and as researchers can do so with conceptual competence, but they can leave out a whole series of verifications that would guarantee that the process is much more suitable and much more transparent (EDIT4).

I think that it is to look for the specialty and the disposition of the people to make the review, I see that it is in itself a difficulty, I say this because you always receive requests to contribute or collaborate in reviews and sometimes you receive topics that are not the ones you handle or techniques that in my case are not the ones I handle and in that sense you cannot contribute much (RESCH5).

In addition, reference was made to the acceptance and adoption of changes and suggestions made by peer reviewers to submitted manuscripts. Some editors questioned the reluctance of authors to adopt peer reviewers’ suggestions in contrast to the consideration of peer expertise referred to by some researchers interviewed.

Sometimes one does not agree with many of the recommendations of the peers, precisely because they are not so involved in the research topic or in the area’s expertise that they go elsewhere (RESCH7).

there are authors who are extremely reluctant to follow the recommendations of the peer reviewers, they can quickly identify biases, even those who made the evaluation, because there are contexts where the research is so specific that very few people in a whole region handle the subject (EDIT4).

However, the researchers interviewed may submit articles to both Colombian-based and international journals, and each type of publication has its own set of standards and policies. If they are submitting to international journals, they must comply with strict editorial requirements, peer review processes, and ethical guidelines set by those journals. This suggests that Colombian researchers engaging with global academic platforms are already familiar with and adapting to international research integrity standards, regardless of local policies in Colombian journals.

Conflicts of interest

Some of the interviewees expressed questions related to the lack of declaration of conflicts of interest by the peer reviewers and the impact of this situation on the evaluation itself.

these peer evaluations should be open and people should say and also be able to honestly declare their conflict of interest, because look, you find, for example, those people who hate the other person and are not able to say -I have conflict of interest because I do not like that person and I would really proceed very badly if I do the evaluation, I recommend that they look for another person (RESCH9).

The issue of conflict of interest for the journal is complex and difficult to detect and it is based on good faith, although one tries in the search and in the assignment to make sure that the people who evaluate this article are as far away as possible (EDIT10).

Peer training

Considering that the peers are research professors, their training as evaluators is the result of their training and experience in the field of research and teaching. In other words, there is no specific training to be a peer reviewer in scientific journals, although the need for training in scientific integrity, responsible conduct and research and research ethics is recognized.

a strategy should be sought at the country level to at least validate some minimum attitudes for this judging process, to have skills for peer review or to carry out the evaluation process; because it is one thing to write, one thing to publish, and another thing to have the ability to judge (EDIT11).

to be a peer they have to be trained in scientific integrity, not only in being a peer, because scientific integrity is honesty, doing things well, knowing the rules of the game, all that, if the person manages that part, he/she could be a peer evaluator, respect for people because as a peer you have to respect the other person, there are ways of saying things, I do not say -that is a piece of crap- you say -no look, this does not fit what is normally done in this field- right? You use euphemisms, but you have to respect people (RESCH2).

Data management

Although this is an essential area of responsible research management, the interviews conducted revealed a lack of uniform criteria on the subject in the country. The main difficulties were mentioned in relation to ownership of and access to research data and with respect to the roles and responsibilities of researchers and other actors in data management.

Primary ownership of the data

There is agreement on the need to recognize the rights of principal researchers, funded institutions and co-investigators over research data. The need for the design of data management plans is highlighted.

it is the IP that defines who has access and who has the capacity to manage this data, from the scientific issues to the ethical part of the management of this information. (RESCH5)

a database has to have a purpose, it has to have an organization and it has to have a way to be consulted, if they do that work, there is intellectual property, (EDIT12).

Characteristics, roles, and responsibilities in data management

Several of the interviewees agree on the importance of methodology in research and how an inadequate methodology can affect the production of data and results

The protocols, the assurance program, the guides, the roadmaps, the laboratory notebooks, all of this is part of the information and research collection and I should have given it to someone, but nobody wanted to receive it when I left there. Well, because they told me -That is not established within the university system- The university asks for the bill, it asks for the contract, it asks if you have equipment, what equipment did you have, what did you get, and if they are in the inventory, it asks if you had students and if the students graduated or not? But all the research support is not provided (RESCH9).

for a long time they have been very well organized and there are data collection forms, quality monitoring, databases that are generated from the beginning of the research, but there are other data that are a little more complex to manage, which are the data from the research laboratory (RESCH5).

this should be included in our policies, it is complex, we have to do this, well, like everything that implied that data management, we can have this specific repository for data publication- Well, it generated certain responsibilities on the part of the institution of economic type, because we had to make some technological interventions, obviously it is much more work for me to demand some data and make a previous revision (EDIT10).

Some researchers mentioned the need for training in data management and institutional responsibility in the management of open data. They also mentioned the importance of training personnel working with the instruments and ensuring that they have a clear understanding of the study objective and the magnitude of what they are measuring in order to detect errors. One researcher referred in particular to the difficulty in handling data from the research laboratory and how they are being managed with giant Excel templates.

Additionally, interviews highlighted the lack of a data flow chart and awareness of data processing in research. Some researchers refer to how sometimes friends are used to obtain research materials without taking into account the impact this can generate and how this can lead to an informal process and ethical dilemmas.

Mentoring

Importance and role of the mentor

The mentor’s responsibility in the integral formation of the student was also mentioned, not only in giving instructions or reviewing assignments, but also in understanding how the student is assuming, analyzing and managing information and how he/she is digesting the learning process and managing emotions. Several emphasized the importance of accompanying the mentoring process to contribute to the development of a person in a research career and to contribute more to the country by training researchers.

The mentor is the one who is training, not only at the level of accompanying the research (. . .) but he is also the person who is making sure that the student is complying with ethical principles, with good practices, that is, he is the one who is finally modeling these students in their training (EDIT13).

the mentor is the teacher, the one who guides with prudence, the one who teaches responsibility, the one who shows him the way, but also shows him by example, because I cannot tell the student -Be compliant- if I never come to the sessions, -You must not do things without being organized- when he sees that I am disorganized, -You must read- I do not read, that is the problem, then a mentor has to be a human being who understands his function as a teacher, as a trainer (RESCH9).

Training of mentors

Interviewees referred to the challenges and frustrations that graduate students face in their exclusive dedication to research. Some mentioned the impact on students’ mental health and how aggressive and authoritarian treatment does not contribute in any dimension.

in many cases, the mentor needs training in that, in scientific integrity, in bioethical principles, because we cannot be sure that mentors are automatically positive models for the training of a researcher just because they have research groups or because they have funding for projects or recognition in their area of study. (RESCH8).

this permanent training seminar for editors and authors should become a practice that all institutions should follow and it is not a seminar in the sense, as we are used to in Colombia of -In this week we are going to invite a thousand experts- but rather permanent talks and debates that help us to incorporate all that you clearly mention that is in the theory, but that we cannot carry out, then the institutions should not see this as an extra expense, but simply as a strategy to improve their prestige that I think is missing and their reputation at the research level.(EDIT11)

Discussion

In Colombia, this is one of the first qualitative studies documenting the attitudes, perceptions and practices of researchers, scientific journal editors and directors or administrative managers of scientific research toward scientific research integrity according to a set of analysis categories through interviews. This study yielded important insights into the attitudes of the Colombian researchers about their role as researchers, peer reviewer, journal editor or mentor adopting and forming good practices related to responsible conduct of research and scientific integrity. It is for this reason that this attempt could be deemed as a first evaluation of the national policy of ethics, bioethics and scientific integrity in the country.

Our study revealed a high level of concordance among the respondents due to the lack of knowledge and effective action against the malpractice they perceived in their institution. In addition, some researchers (RESCH1, RESCH2, RESCH5, RESCH6, RESCH7, RESCH11) referred to situations of misconduct that, in their opinion, had occurred in their institution or in other institutions without repercussions. They also felt that very few researchers were actually aware of at least one instance of misconduct in their institution. Both researchers and editors and research managers rated the severity of sanctions for scientific misconduct in their working environment as low or very low, and although they felt that sanctions should not be punitive but rather educational, they should be effective, visible and known to all. reduce scientific misconduct.

The scientific literature highlights the impact of research work environments and work settings on the promotion of responsible research conduct and scientific integrity (de Vries et al., 2006; Franzen et al., 2007; Martinson et al., 2010; Jeffers and Whittemore, 2005). Franzen, Rödder, and Weingart emphasize the macro-level institutional factors and public perception of fraud, whereas Martinson, Anderson, Crain, and De Vries focus on the micro-level, examining the influence of the immediate work environment and individual perceptions of justice on scientists’ behaviors. Coincidentally, in our study it was observed that interviewees made focus on the micro-level influence. They talked frequent references to this correlation between research environments and perceptions of scientific misconduct in the framework of the national science, technology, and innovation system.

Some researchers described the criminal penalties foreseen for cases such as plagiarism as high, in contrast to the low use of the criminal justice system for such scientific misconduct. This is compounded by the ineffectiveness of the rules and procedures of research institutions and centers in reducing scientific misconduct.

It is evident from both the scientific literature and the interviews conducted that universities and educational institutions as well as independent research centers have an important role to play in preventing cases of scientific misconduct. Hence, there is a need for institutional incentives, protocols and policies for the promotion of responsible conduct in research that articulate with national ones. In addition to the current Colombian policy on ethics, bioethics and scientific integrity of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, it is imperative that the Ministry facilitates coordination among key actors in institutions and provides resources to those that lack the academic and personal capacities necessary for such efforts.

However, we argue that it is crucial that institutions maintain their independence in this matter, given the diverse nature of research communities and working conditions, and the importance of maintaining the distinctiveness of institutional cultures. The case for maintaining institutional autonomy is reinforced by the divergence of views in the existing literature on the appropriate course of action in response to research misconduct. While some authors advocate de-emphasizing the identification of wrongdoers and the application of sanctions, others argue that a more stringent punitive approach, including legal repercussions, is essential to mitigate the prevalence of such misconduct. For instance, the study in Nigeria indicates a high perception of scientific misconduct among researchers, who are also concerned about its negative impacts on research credibility. However, they perceived the work environment as not providing adequate disincentives for misconduct due to low perceived severity of penalties and low chances of being caught (Okonta and Rossouw, 2014). In contrast, our study reveals distrust in the criminal jurisdiction as a mechanism to prevent and punish scientific misconduct.

One key discovery from this research was that peer review serves a social purpose, involves voluntary efforts, and demands ethical dedication from reviewers. Furthermore, our study validated the conclusions drawn in prior research. This encompassed the evaluation of manuscript contributions, the Ware’s paper shows that the primary benefit of peer review is improving the quality of published papers (Ware, 2008; Ware and O’Dowd, 2008), maintaining quality standards (Mulligan et al., 2013; Van Tassell et al., 1992; Ware, 2008), enhancement of manuscript quality. In this way, previous studies found that most researchers highly appreciate the peer review process, considering it a crucial element in academic research communication (Mulligan et al., 2013; Nicholas et al., 2015; Rowlands and Nicholas, 2006; Van Tassell et al., 1992; Ware and O’Dowd, 2008), gauging manuscript suitability for a specific journal (Mulligan et al., 2013; Van Tassell et al., 1992), providing an aid for editorial decisions (Glonti et al., 2019), and conferring an endorsement or validation for published content (Nicholas et al., 2015; Ware, 2008).

This study coincides with those carried out more than a decade ago, which highlight the importance of peer review despite the challenges that this process represents (Mulligan et al., 2013; Nicholas et al., 2015)

The concern for responsible data management practices in research was strengthened by the Hong Kong declaration and despite the fact that interviewees did not refer to this instrument related to scientific integrity. In agreement with Moher et. al (2020), the importance of Data Management Plans and the criteria for access to them by the investigators of a given protocol and the research community in general was highlighted.

Conclusions

The country has policy recommendations on scientific integrity, but there are no laws or legal norms related to it. This means that Colombia lacks binding policies on research integrity both nationally and institutionally, and lacks resources to implement these policies and/or the implementation of these policies is deficient.

The role of universities, institutions and research centers is highlighted, which must assume responsibility for ensuring that the fundamental principles of professional ethics inform scientific activity and promote responsible conduct in research and scientific integrity. In this sense, both at the national and institutional levels, more effective measures are required to prevent and detect scientific misconduct.

The issue may not be the absence of research integrity policies in universities but rather the lack of resources and effective implementation strategies to operationalize them. Universities might have well-defined policies on ethical research conduct, but without proper funding, training, and institutional support, these policies may not be effectively enforced. Weak oversight, limited personnel dedicated to research integrity, and insufficient incentives for compliance could contribute to poor adherence to ethical standards, making enforcement a greater challenge than policy creation itself. However, some institutions have not of research integrity policies.

In accordance with the scientific literature, clear policies and protocols are required to properly apply authorship criteria, strengthen peer review processes, research data management and, in general, the creation of research environments that align international frameworks with national and institutional policies.

For instance, if the journals of the interviewed editors accept submissions from foreign authors, they likely adhere to international standards and policies to maintain credibility and competitiveness in the global academic community. These standards typically include rigorous peer review processes, ethical guidelines, and criteria for rejecting research that lacks scientific rigor (EDIT8). Even if the journals are primarily based in Colombia, their engagement with international authors suggests a level of adherence to globally recognized academic practices, ensuring the quality and integrity of published research.

Additionally, most academic journals have well-established policies and systems designed to ensure objectivity and fairness in the peer review process. These mechanisms help prevent conflicts of interest, detect plagiarism, and uphold research ethics. Reviewers follow standardized guidelines to evaluate submissions based on scientific merit, methodology, and originality, which reinforces the integrity of published work. The presence of such systems indicates that concerns about research integrity are not necessarily due to a lack of policies but might stem from challenges in their consistent enforcement.

In the global landscape of scientific integrity, the issue of retracted publications is a growing concern, with data from Turkey highlighting specific trends and challenges. An analysis of biomedical literature from Turkey indicates a rising number of retracted articles over the years, with the first recorded in 2000 and a peak in 2020 (Kocyigit and Akyol, 2022). The primary reasons for these retractions are plagiarism, duplication, and error, which are common across various subject areas like cardiology, obstetrics and gynecology, and oncology. A significant issue observed is that these retracted articles continue to be cited even after retraction, indicating a need for better strategies to prevent the dissemination of erroneous information and waste of research budgets. This increasing trend in retractions is seen as a reflection of the overall growth in scientific publications and possibly increased awareness among editors and researchers, alongside pressures within academia. The median time lag between publication and retraction was 10.33 months, underscoring the urgency to minimize this period to curb the spread of incorrect data (Bak, 2018).

Similarly, a survey of researchers in three tertiary hospitals in China reveals critical insights into the factors contributing to scientific misconduct. The leading influencing factors identified were individual morality, pressure for promotion, and pressure for publishing articles, with over half of researchers reporting high pressure for promotion, publication, and external funding. The most common form of misconduct admitted by researchers was inappropriate authorship, although a notable percentage also confessed to fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (Yu et al., 2021). These findings suggest that high academic competition and systemic pressures can drive unethical behaviors, which aligns with observations from Turkey regarding the pressure to publish in high-impact journals.

To address these issues globally, including in countries like Colombia, our research, according to the comparative studies, suggest that policies should focus on increasing awareness of scientific integrity, improving evaluation systems for promotion, and enhancing auditing and surveillance mechanisms.

In the case of Colombia, there is currently no established national system that allows for the identification of retracted scientific publications or for reporting instances of misconduct or questionable research practices within the scientific community. This absence represents a significant gap compared to countries with more developed mechanisms for scientific integrity. The lack of a formal reporting and tracking system in Colombia could hinder efforts to understand the scope of the problem and implement targeted interventions.

In addition to the above, the enforcement of sanctions for violations of scientific integrity faces significant legal challenges. One of the main issues is that imposing sanctions could be considered a violation of the constitutional right to due process, as only duly established authorities or specific disciplinary bodies within institutions have the competence to do so. This limits the effectiveness of ethics committees, which, although they detect unethical practices, often cannot take direct disciplinary measures due to the lack of a clear and applicable legal framework. As a result, the protection of scientific integrity in Colombia is weakened, since legal complexities hinder the implementation of effective sanctions and the deterrence of misconduct in research. However, it is important to highlight that, although there are legal particularities, the factors and concerns related to questionable practices regarding scientific integrity are generally shared with other countries, reflecting a common need to strengthen ethical mechanisms and cultures worldwide.

Finally,this qualitative study has highlighted the lack of programs and policies that focus on mentoring processes and that go beyond the simple role of supervisors of graduate work or theses. Although the value of mentoring is recognized, the lack of incentives in terms of time dedicated to mentoring in research is also noted.