Methods to assess research misconduct in health-related research: A scoping review

E.M Bordewijk, Wentao Li* (Corresponding Author), Rik van Eekelen, Rui Wang, Marian Showell, Ben Willem J. Mol, Madelon van Wely

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

19 Citations (Scopus)


To give an overview of the available methods to investigate research misconduct in health-related research.

Study Design and Setting
In this scoping review, we conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Studies Online (CRSO), and The Virtual Health Library portal up to July 2020. We included papers that mentioned and/or described methods for screening or assessing research misconduct in health-related research. We categorized identified methods into the following four groups according to their scopes: overall concern, textual concern, image concern, and data concern.

We included 57 papers reporting on 27 methods: two on overall concern, four on textual concern, three on image concern, and 18 on data concern. Apart from the methods to locate textual plagiarism and image manipulation, all other methods, be it theoretical or empirical, are based on examples, are not standardized, and lack formal validation.

Existing methods cover a wide range of issues regarding research misconduct. Although measures to counteract textual plagiarism are well implemented, tools to investigate other forms of research misconduct are rudimentary and labour-intensive. To cope with the rising challenge of research misconduct, further development of automatic tools and routine validation of these methods is needed.

Trial registration number
Center for Open Science (OSF) (
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)189-202
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Early online date24 May 2021
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2021


  • Data integrity
  • Research misconduct
  • Scientific misconduct
  • Randomization
  • Methods
  • Scoping review


Dive into the research topics of 'Methods to assess research misconduct in health-related research: A scoping review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this