DOI: https://doi.org/10.53350/pjmhs22169415 ORIGINAL ARTICLE P J M H S Vol. 16, No. 09, September, 2022 415 Questionable Research Practices Among Dentists UROOJ WASEEM 1 , SHEHRYAR AWAN 2 , KHIZAR ANSAR MALIK 3 , DANISH JAVED 4 , SANA ZAFAR 5 , FASIH AHMAD KHAN 6 , AMINA TARIQ 7 1 Postgraduate Resident, Department of Science of Dental Materials, Postgraduate Medical Institution, Lahore 2 Demonstartor, Islam Dental College, Sialkot 3 Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, University College of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Lahore 4 Associate Professor, Department of Oral Pathology, Islam Dental College, Sialkot 5 Associate professor, Department of Oral Biology, Islam Dental College, Sialkot 6 Demonstrator, Department of Physiology, Islam Dental College, Sialkot 7 Research coordinator, Research cell, University College of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Lahore Corresponding author: Amina Tariq, Email: aminatariq8@gmail.com ABSTRACT Objective: The objective of the study is to explore the frequency of mal-practicing in terms of giving and accepting honorary authorships among dentists in private dental colleges of Lahore Method: This descriptive crossectional study was conducted to collect data from dentists working in private dental colleges of Lahore regarding plagiarism practices. Three private dental colleges were targeted from where data of 95 dentists was obtained. Data was collected using questionnaire to assess the questionable research practices. Results: Refusal on data sharing with legitimate colleagues was never practiced by majority of participants (46.1%). Addition of author(s) to a research paper who have not contributed in study was sometimes practiced by majority of participants (27.9%). Majority of participants reported that they occasionally accept honorary authorship for which you did not qualify (26.26%). Majority of participants reported that they never demanded any honorary authorship (48.41%). Refusal to give authorship to the person who had worked in the study was never practiced by majority of participants (62.11%). Majority of participants reported that they never submission without taking consent from other authors of a manuscript or grant application (65.26%). Majority of the participants reported that they never do a submission of single manuscript to more than one journals at one time (56.84%). Conclusion: Among dentist, mal-practicing in terms of collaboration and authorship is quite low as compared to in other health professional education as per literature. Keywords: Dental education, Ethical policies, Honorary authorships INTRODUCTION Scientific practices are based on the conduction of research in an accountable way. 1,2 Adoption of a described way of conducting research is highly accountable for understanding the phenomenon which should be unbiased and accurate as it becomes a guideline for others to understand same phenomenon. 3 Therefore, fabrication of data misguide the audience that fall under unethical practices of research which frequently raised a question to research practices along with developing the rationalization towards unethical practices cause self-deception as well. 4 As a result, dubious research practices have a high prevailing rate which is quite harmful to science causing damage to the reputation. 4–8 Eventually, dubious research practices causes the resources depletion while offering a discriminating benefit to some investigators over others, and setting a discriminated illustration for rest of investigators, particularly research students. 7 Health professional education is not resistant of the detrimental consequences of malpractices in research. In the context of health professional education, concept of honorary authorship is prevailing which fall under questionable research practices along with other problems. 7,9-11 Even after making the ethical committees and adding the course of ethics as a subject in curriculum, this malpractice in research is prevailing in health professional education. Hence, there is a need to explore this mal- practicing in dental education in Lahore, Pakistan. Therefore the objective of the study is to explore the frequency of mal-practicing in terms of giving and accepting honorary authorships among dentists in private dental colleges of Lahore. METHODOLOGY This descriptive crossectional study was conducted to collect data from dentists working in private dental colleges of Lahore regarding plagiarism practices. Three private dental colleges were targeted. Data of 95 dentists was obtained after briefly introducing the purpose of study to the participants. Data was collected using convenient sampling technique. Written consent was also get signed by all the participants. Dentists who were working in academia were targeted. Data was collected using questionnaire to assess the questionable research practices. Collected data was entered in SPSS version 25. Frequencies and percentages were calculated to assess the questionable research practices among dentists RESULTS Refusal on data sharing with legitimate colleagues was never practiced by majority of participants (46.1%). Addition of author(s) to a research paper who have not contributed in study was sometimes practiced by majority of participants (27.9%). Majority of participants reported that they occasionally accept honorary authorship for which you did not qualify (26.26%). Majority of participants reported that they never demanded any honorary authorship (48.41%). Refusal to give authorship to the person who had worked in the study was never practiced by majority of participants (62.11%). Majority of participants reported that they never submission without taking consent from other authors of a manuscript or grant application (65.26%). Majority of the participants reported that they never do a submission of single manuscript to more than one journals at one time (56.84%). Table 1: Authorships and Collaboration practices among dentists Collaboration and Authorship Never Once Occasionally Sometimes Frequently Almost always Not applicable Have you ever refused to share research data with legitimate colleagues 46.1% 22% 13.4% 11.5% 4% 2% 1% Have you ever made addition of author(s) to a research paper who have not contributed in study? 10.9% 3% 25.9% 27.9% 20.6% 9.4% 2.3% Have you ever accepted any honorary authorship for which you did not qualify 24.27% 9.47% 26.26% 21.05% 11.58% 3.16% 4.21% Have you ever demanded honorary authorship for which you did not qualify 48.41% 5.26% 18.95% 14.74% 2.11% 6.32% 4.21%