METHOD: 21 in-depth interviews were carried out.
RESULTS: Our analysis revealed variability in experiences with various types of unethical authorship practices among the interviewees. Second, we found that unethical authorship practices are not so unusual among academia although the exact numbers of incidents are unknown due to the fact that such practices are seldom reported. Third, our interviewees revealed that the culture of 'publish or perish' could be the main contributor to unethical practices of authorship because publication records are the main criteria for researcher's career evaluation besides, others, which are set by the university.
CONCLUSION: It was suggested that the institution must play a proactive role in educating and promoting awareness on authorship guidelines, through education and training, ethical leadership as well as promoting the importance of publication ethics.
METHOD: A model was formulated by extending an existing generic knowledge management systems success model by including organisational and system factors relevant to healthcare. It was tested by using data obtained from 263 doctors working within two district health boards in New Zealand.
RESULTS: Of the system factors, knowledge content quality was found to be particularly important for knowledge management systems success. Of the organisational factors, leadership was the most important, and more important than incentives.
CONCLUSION: Leadership promoted knowledge management systems success primarily by positively affecting knowledge content quality. Leadership also promoted knowledge management use for retrieval, which should lead to the use of that better quality knowledge by the doctors, ultimately resulting in better outcomes for patients.