Survey study of research integrity officers' perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct

被引:3
作者
Kalichman, Michael [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Diego, Res Eth Program, 9500 Gilman Dr, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会; 美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Good practices of research; Responsible conduct of research; Research integrity officer; Research misconduct; ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE; SCIENTISTS;
D O I
10.1186/s41073-020-00103-1
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Research on research integrity has tended to focus on frequency of research misconduct and factors that might induce someone to commit research misconduct. A definitive answer to the first question has been elusive, but it remains clear that any research misconduct is too much. Answers to the second question are so diverse, it might be productive to ask a different question: What about how research is done allows research misconduct to occur? Methods With that question in mind, research integrity officers (RIOs) of the 62 members of the American Association of Universities were invited to complete a brief survey about their most recent instance of a finding of research misconduct. Respondents were asked whether one or more good practices of research (e.g., openness and transparency, keeping good research records) were present in their case of research misconduct. Results Twenty-four (24) of the respondents (39% response rate) indicated they had dealt with at least one finding of research misconduct and answered the survey questions. Over half of these RIOs reported that their case of research misconduct had occurred in an environment in which at least nine of the ten listed good practices of research were deficient. Conclusions These results are not evidence for a causal effect of poor practices, but it is arguable that committing research misconduct would be more difficult if not impossible in research environments adhering to good practices of research.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [1] Adams Douglas, 2005, Account Res, V12, P225, DOI 10.1080/08989620500217495
  • [2] What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists' misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists
    Anderson, Melissa S.
    Horn, Aaron S.
    Risbey, Kelly R.
    Ronning, Emily A.
    De Vries, Raymond
    Martinson, Brian C.
    [J]. ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2007, 82 (09) : 853 - 860
  • [3] A Meta-Analysis of Ethics Instruction Effectiveness in the Sciences
    Antes, Alison L.
    Murphy, Stephen T.
    Waples, Ethan P.
    Mumford, Michael D.
    Brown, Ryan P.
    Connelly, Shane
    Devenport, Lynn D.
    [J]. ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 2009, 19 (05) : 379 - 402
  • [4] Baker M, 2016, NATURE, V533, P452, DOI 10.1038/533452a
  • [5] CONGRESS TOLD FRAUD ISSUE EXAGGERATED
    BROAD, WJ
    [J]. SCIENCE, 1981, 212 (4493) : 421 - 421
  • [6] Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: Evidence from ORI case files
    Davis, Mark S.
    Riske-Morris, Michelle
    Diaz, Sebastian R.
    [J]. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, 2007, 13 (04) : 395 - 414
  • [7] Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity
    Fanelli, Daniele
    Costas, Rodrigo
    Lariviere, Vincent
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (06):
  • [8] How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
    Fanelli, Daniele
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2009, 4 (05):
  • [9] The IRB paradox: Could the protectors also encourage deceit?
    Keith-Spiegel, P
    Koocher, GP
    [J]. ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 2005, 15 (04) : 339 - 349
  • [10] Scientists behaving badly
    Martinson, BC
    Anderson, MS
    de Vries, R
    [J]. NATURE, 2005, 435 (7043) : 737 - 738