Literature DB >> 28971354

Scientists Still Behaving Badly? A Survey Within Industry and Universities.

Simon Godecharle1, Steffen Fieuws2, Ben Nemery3, Kris Dierickx4.   

Abstract

Little is known about research misconduct within industry and how it compares to universities, even though a lot of biomedical research is performed by-or in collaboration with-commercial entities. Therefore, we sent an e-mail invitation to participate in an anonymous computer-based survey to all university researchers having received a biomedical research grant or scholarship from one of the two national academic research funders of Belgium between 2010 and 2014, and to researchers working in large biomedical companies or spin-offs in Belgium. The validated survey included questions about various types of research misconduct committed by respondents themselves and observed among their colleagues in the last three years. Prevalences of misconduct were compared between university and industry respondents using binary logistic regression models, with adjustments for relevant personal characteristics, and with significance being accepted for p < 0.01. The survey was sent to 1766 people within universities and an estimated 255 people from industry. Response rates were 43 (767/1766) and 48% (123/255), and usable information was available for 617 and 100 respondents, respectively. In general, research misconduct was less likely to be reported by industry respondents compared to university respondents. Significant differences were apparent for one admitted action (gift authorship) and three observed actions (plagiarism, gift authorship, and circumventing animal-subjects research requirements), always with lower prevalences for industry compared to universities, except for plagiarism. This survey, based on anonymous self-report, shows that research misconduct occurs to a substantial degree among biomedical researchers from both industry and universities.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Industry; Research integrity; Research misconduct; Universities

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28971354     DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9957-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  22 in total

1.  Scientific misconduct is worryingly prevalent in the UK, shows BMJ survey.

Authors:  Aniket Tavare
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-01-12

2.  Scientists behaving badly.

Authors:  Brian C Martinson; Melissa S Anderson; Raymond de Vries
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-06-09       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification.

Authors:  Stef van Buuren
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.021

Review 4.  Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations.

Authors:  Denise F Polit; Cheryl Tatano Beck; Steven V Owen
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.228

5.  How should variable selection be performed with multiply imputed data?

Authors:  Angela M Wood; Ian R White; Patrick Royston
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-07-30       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Drug development. Corruption and research fraud send big chill through big pharma in China.

Authors:  Mara Hvistendahl
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-08-02       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Repairing research integrity.

Authors:  Sandra L Titus; James A Wells; Lawrence J Rhoades
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-06-19       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science.

Authors:  Wolfgang Stroebe; Tom Postmes; Russell Spears
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2012-11

9.  Guidance on research integrity: no union in Europe.

Authors:  S Godecharle; B Nemery; K Dierickx
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2013-03-30       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies.

Authors:  Richard Smith
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2005-05-17       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  3 in total

1.  Scientific honesty and publicly shared lab notebooks: Sharing lab notebooks along with publication would increase transparency and help to improve honesty when reporting results.

Authors:  Bas van Steensel
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 8.807

2.  Differing Perceptions Concerning Research Integrity Between Universities and Industry: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Simon Godecharle; Benoit Nemery; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Perceptions of plagiarism by biomedical researchers: an online survey in Europe and China.

Authors:  Nannan Yi; Benoit Nemery; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 2.652

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.