Literature DB >> 8655786

Survey of ethical issues in dental research.

M J Bebeau1, E L Davis.   

Abstract

The American Association for Dental Research (AADR) surveyed its leaders to determine their perceptions of the prevalence of problematic research practices and the possible roles AADR should play in promoting scientific integrity. Seventy-six of the 98 program chairs and Association officers (1990-1995) surveyed responded. In general, these respondents did not think that serious misconduct or sloppy science occurred more often in AADR than in other scientific disciplines. Overall, respondents rated practices that undermine the trustworthiness of science (falsifying or fabrication of research data, retaliation, failure to present negative results, failure to disclose involvement with commercial enterprises, failure to maintain research records, etc.) as more serious, but less prevalent, than practices considered disrespectful of the work of others (gift authorship, citing sources without reading them, dividing a project into many small units, etc.). All respondents said that they had observed each of the less serious problematic practices one or more times, whereas 10% reported having observed retaliation, 30% reported having observed falsification, and 54% reported having observed plagiarism one or more times. AADR leaders had observed many more instances of misconduct and other problematic research practices than had faculty surveyed by Swazey et al. (1993), supporting conclusions by Greenberg and Goldberg (1994) that status and years of experience are associated with more frequent observations of misconduct. With respect to the possible roles the AADR might play in promoting research integrity, 88% thought that AADR should develop ethics cases and materials for educational use, 78% thought that AADR should create a process for addressing allegations of misconduct, 72% thought that the Association should develop an ethics committee or consultation service, 55% thought it should create a yearly ethics symposium, and 45% thought that the AADR should develop a more specific code of ethics to complement the general code recently developed by the IADR.

Entities:  

Keywords:  American Association for Dental Research; Bioethics and Professional Ethics; Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach; International Association for Dental Research

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8655786     DOI: 10.1177/00220345960750021901

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dent Res        ISSN: 0022-0345            Impact factor:   6.116


  10 in total

Review 1.  Scientific misconduct: a perspective from India.

Authors:  Husain Sabir; Subhash Kumbhare; Amit Parate; Rajesh Kumar; Suroopa Das
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2015-05

Review 2.  Attitudes of academic and clinical researchers toward financial ties in research: a systematic review.

Authors:  Bonnie E Glaser; Lisa A Bero
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  An Insight Into Research Ethics among Dental Professionals in A Dental Institute, India- A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Shravani G Deolia; Kvv Prasad; Kumar Gaurav Chhabra; Ramya Kalyanpur; Shrivardhan Kalghatgi
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2014-09-20

Review 4.  Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys.

Authors:  Vanja Pupovac; Daniele Fanelli
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  What Crisis? Management Researchers' Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct.

Authors:  Christian Hopp; Gary A Hoover
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2019-01-02       Impact factor: 3.525

6.  Knowledge, Awareness, and Attitudes about Research Ethics among Dental Faculty in the Middle East: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Hadir F El-Dessouky; Amr M Abdel-Aziz; Chadi Ibrahim; Malini Moni; Reham Abul Fadl; Henry Silverman
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2011-07-03

7.  Identifying bioethical issues in biostatistical consulting: findings from a US national pilot survey of biostatisticians.

Authors:  Min Qi Wang; Alice F Yan; Ralph V Katz
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 8.  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

9.  Reporting of Ethical Considerations Associated with Clinical Trials Published in Iranian Dental Journals between 2001 and 2011.

Authors:  Nader Navabi; Arash Shahravan; Ali Modaberi
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 1.429

Review 10.  Authors, authorship order, the moving finger writes.

Authors:  Jayakumar Avula; Haritha Avula
Journal:  J Indian Soc Periodontol       Date:  2015 May-Jun
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.