Literature DB >> 10635506

Fraud, misconduct or normal science in medical research--an empirical study of demarcation.

N Lynöe1, L Jacobsson, E Lundgren.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To study and describe how a group of senior researchers and a group of postgraduate students perceived the so-called "grey zone" between normal scientific practice and obvious misconduct.
DESIGN: A questionnaire concerning various practices including dishonesty and obvious misconduct. The answers were obtained by means of a visual analogue scale (VAS). The central (two quarters) of the VAS were designated as a grey zone.
SETTING: A Swedish medical faculty. SURVEY SAMPLE: 30 senior researchers and 30 postgraduate students.
RESULTS: Twenty of the senior researchers and 25 of the postgraduate students answered the questionnaire. In five cases out of 14 the senior researchers' median was found to be clearly within the interval of the grey zone, compared with three cases for the postgraduate students. Three examples of experienced misconduct were provided. Compared with postgraduate students, established researchers do not call for more research ethical guidelines and restrictions.
CONCLUSION: Although the results indicate that consensus exists regarding certain obvious types of misconduct the response pattern also indicates that there is no general consensus on several procedures.

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10635506      PMCID: PMC479303          DOI: 10.1136/jme.25.6.501

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  5 in total

1.  A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics.

Authors:  M W Kalichman; P J Friedman
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 6.893

2.  What is misconduct in science?

Authors:  H K Schachman
Journal:  Science       Date:  1993-07-09       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Misconduct in medical research.

Authors:  D Evered; P Lazar
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1995-05-06       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  The pathology of research fraud: the history and politics of the US experience.

Authors:  M C Lafollette
Journal:  J Intern Med       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 8.989

5.  [Misconduct in medical research. A questionnaire survey among project leaders in health region 4].

Authors:  A Hals; G Jacobsen
Journal:  Nord Med       Date:  1994
  5 in total
  4 in total

1.  A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards research fraud.

Authors:  D Geggie
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  The White Bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism.

Authors:  L S Kwok
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Biomedical authors' awareness of publication ethics: an international survey.

Authors:  Sara Schroter; Jason Roberts; Elizabeth Loder; Donald B Penzien; Sarah Mahadeo; Timothy T Houle
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-11-25       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 4.  How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.