Factors of Research Misconduct in Non-Western Contexts: Perceptions of Faculty from Kazakhstan

• In Event: Governance and Policy Transformations in Central Asian Higher Education Systems

Proposal

Research misconduct is increasingly recognized as “a grand global challenge for the 21st century” (Farthing, 2014). Van Noorden (2023) reported a record of 10,000 research paper retractions in 2023 alone. Notably, evidence suggests that research misconduct is growing faster in non-Western countries than in the West. Sebo and Sebo (2025) found that countries like China, India, and several in the Middle East had disproportionately high retraction rates from 1996 to 2023, even after adjusting for population and publication volume. Similarly, a 2018 survey in Egypt, Lebanon, and Bahrain showed 59.4% of researchers admitted to at least one form of misconduct, and 74.5% reported knowing colleagues who had done the same. In Kenya, Were et al. (2020) found that 68.3% of HIV researchers had engaged in research misconduct.
The global rise in research misconduct calls for immediate action from higher education policy makers, scholarly community, and researchers on research ethics. For science to benefit society, it must be built on trust, rigor, and transparency (Moher et al., 2020) and guided by ethical principles such as honesty, accountability, and fairness (Resnik & Shamoo, 2011). Misconduct undermines scientific progress (Stern et al., 2014), erodes public confidence in research (Armond et al., 2021), and wastes both financial and human resources (Bordewijk et al., 2021). In today’s interconnected research environment, unethical practices in one region can negatively affect global knowledge and the quality of life of all the humanity.
The increasing incidence of breeches in research integrity has stimulated much scholarly attention to understanding the scale, manifestations, and drivers of research misconduct. With the recent growth in research misconduct in non-Western countries, research on the topic has picked up in countries outside the West. Examples of such recent studies include explorations conducted in Iran (Felaefel et al., 2018; Khadem-Rezaiyan et al., 2017; Shamsoddin et al., 2021), Kenya (Were et al., 2020), India (Sridhar, 2018), Brazil (Stavale et al., 2019), Malaysia (Ng et al., 2023; Olesen et al., 2022), China (Tang et al., 2023; Yu et al., 2021), Taiwan (Chou et al., 2022), and Oman (Al-Adawi et al., 2016). In addition, several comparative studies were conducted in China and Flanders (Li & Cornelis, 2021), in China and Europe (Li et al., 2020), and across East Asia (Bak, 2018; Rodrigues, 2023).
Research misconduct in the post-Soviet region remains underexplored, with Russia being the only country studied in this context (Abalkina, 2023; Geraschenko, 2022; Rostovtsev, 2017; Trubnikov & Trubnikova, 2023). This region is undergoing a shift from the isolated and ideologically controlled Soviet research system and culture to the new system, largely informed by the Western models and values, open and gradually integrated in the global knowledge dissemination system dominated by the English as a medium of scientific communication. Scholars face challenges in this transition, including intense publication pressures, limited research and language skills, and inadequate institutional support. These conditions contribute to rising misconduct. Kazakhstan stands out as a key case, having gained international attention for its high levels of predatory publishing (Kenessov, 2022; Khan, 2021). This study fills the gap in the existing research on research misconduct in post-Soviet context by conducting an exploration of the topic in Kazakhstan using data from interviews with faculty in the country.
Using qualitative description approach (Sandelowski, 2000) and drawing on Davis’s (2003) conceptual model of research misconduct factors, the study answers the following research questions: What are the drivers of research misconduct in the country? Interviews with 19 faculty members revealed intersecting factors contributing to research misconduct. These factors align with Davis’s (2003) typology – individual, situational, organizational, structural, and cultural factors – but are expanded to include context-specific geopolitical factors.
The findings show that, at the individual level, misconduct is linked to poor understanding of research ethics, limited methodological and writing skills, and pressure to publish in international journals. Situational factors include the pressure to meet strict deadlines tied to government-funded grants and dissertation defense requirements, often leading scholars to manipulate data or pay for publication to avoid academic or financial penalties. Organizational factors involve superficial ethics reviews, a lack of reporting systems, and weak enforcement of misconduct policies. Leadership attitudes significantly shape organizational norms, ranging from discouragement to tolerance of unethical practices. Structural issues are rooted in Kazakhstani hybrid academic environment, shaped by conflicting Soviet and Western systems. Outcome-based evaluations and inadequate research infrastructure push scholars toward unethical practices. Weak scholarly societies, limited access to bibliometric tools, and widespread corruption further erode research integrity. Cultural tensions emerge around authorship norms and the use of personal connections (“blat”) inherited from Soviet times. Traditional values often conflict with Western ethical standards, especially around consent procedures and distribution of funding. Finally, geopolitical factors, such as censorship of topics related to Russian past colonial policies or national identity, contribute to self-censorship and limit the scope of research integrity.
The study critically examines research misconduct in the formerly colonized context beyond the Anglo-Saxon colonial system. In Kazakhstan, Soviet-era legacies, emerging neoliberal evaluation models, and attempts to revive Indigenous knowledge systems intersect and clash, creating ambiguous ethical norms. Weak scholarly societies in low-capacity research environments were identified as a structural vulnerability, limiting reputational control over misconduct. The research also highlights self-censorship as a form of misconduct, driven by geopolitical sensitivities in post-authoritarian settings.
Finally, the study argues for the cultural relativity of ethical norms, suggesting that applying Western-centric standards may misrepresent ethical practice in non-Western settings. These insights advance Davis’s framework and underscore the need for culturally sensitive and context-specific approaches to research ethics in post-colonial and transitional societies.

Authors

• Tatyana Kim, University of Calgary

• Aliya Kuzhabekova, University of Calgary

• Arafat Mamyrbekov, University of Calgary