Crossmark

Individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors associated with questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific health services research publications

Crossref DOI link: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05624-5

Published Online: 2020-09-03

Published Print: 2020-12

Update policy: https://doi.org/10.1007/springer_crossmark_policy

Authors

Gerrits, Reinie G. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8030-2882
Mulyanto, Joko

Wammes, Joost D.

van den Berg, Michael J.

Klazinga, Niek S.

Kringos, Dionne S.
Funding

Funding for this research was provided by:

ZonMw (445001003)
License Information

Text and Data Mining valid from 2020-09-03

Version of Record valid from 2020-09-03
More Information

Article History

Received: 27 February 2020

Accepted: 4 August 2020

First Online: 3 September 2020

Ethics approval and consent to participate

: Ethical approval was deemed unnecessary by the study’s affiliated protocols (Medical Research Act with People [Wet medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek met mensen (WMO) [Dutch]], in BWBR0009408, W.a.S. Ministry of Health, Editor. 1998: Hague, Netherlands). A waiver for ethical approval was therefore obtained for this study from the Medical Ethics Review Committee at Amsterdam UMC. Survey participants provided written consent to participate at the start of the survey. Interview and focus group participants provided verbal consent at the start of all interviews and focus groups. Verbal consent was considered adequate as no human data was retained. To assure voluntary participation, informed consent was reiterated at the start of each focus group and recorded.

: Not applicable.

: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Document is current

Any future updates will be listed below