Ethical Shades of Gray: International Frequency of Scientific Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education
Ethical Shades of Gray: International Frequency of Scientific Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/acm.0000000000002412
复制
发表时间：
2019-01-01
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Maggio, Lauren A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Artino, Anthony R., Jr.;Driessen, Erik W.;Maggio, Lauren A.
目的为了保持科学的公正性和建立公众的信心，研究必须负责任地进行。尽管故意的科学不端行为，如伪造数据，显然是不道德的，但其他行为--通常被称为可疑研究实践(QRP)--利用了可接受的实践所带有的灰色伦理色彩。这项研究旨在测量健康专业教育(HPE)研究人员中不同的国际样本中自我报告的不当行为和QRP的频率。方法2017年，作者进行了一项匿名的横断面调查研究。这项基于网络的调查包含43个项目，要求受访者对他们从事各种不负责任的研究行为的频率进行评级。这些项目是根据之前发布的调查结果改编的。结果总共有590名HPE研究人员参与了调查。平均年龄为46岁(SD=11.6)，大多数参与者来自美国(26.4%)、欧洲(23.2%)和加拿大(15.3%)。最常见的三种不负责任的研究行为是添加不符合作者资格的作者(60.6%)，引用未读的文章(49.5%)，有选择地引用论文以取悦编辑或审稿人(49.4%)。此外，受访者报告失实陈述参与者的话(6.7%)、抄袭(5.5%)、不当修改结果(5.3%)、删除数据而不公开(3.4%)和捏造数据(2.4%)。总体而言，533(90.3%)的受访者报告了至少一次不负责任的行为。结论：尽管调查研究的方法有局限性，但这些发现表明，相当大比例的HPE研究人员报告了一系列不当行为和QRP。因此，可能需要进行改革，以改进HPE研究的开展。
Purpose To maintain scientific integrity and engender public confidence, research must be conducted responsibly. Whereas deliberate scientific misconduct such as data fabrication is clearly unethical, other behaviors-often referred to as questionable research practices (QRPs)-exploit the ethical shades of gray that color acceptable practice. This study aimed to measure the frequency of self-reported misconduct and QRPs in a diverse, international sample of health professions education (HPE) researchers. Method In 2017, the authors conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional survey study. The web-based survey contained 43 items that asked respondents to rate how often they had engaged in a variety of irresponsible research behaviors. The items were adapted from previously published surveys. Results In total, 590 HPE researchers took the survey. The mean age was 46 years (SD = 11.6), and the majority of participants were from the United States (26.4%), Europe (23.2%), and Canada (15.3%). The three most frequently reported irresponsible research behaviors were adding authors who did not qualify for authorship (60.6%), citing articles that were not read (49.5%), and selectively citing papers to please editors or reviewers (49.4%). Additionally, respondents reported misrepresenting a participant's words (6.7%), plagiarizing (5.5%), inappropriately modifying results (5.3%), deleting data without disclosure (3.4%), and fabricating data (2.4%). Overall, 533 (90.3%) respondents reported at least one irresponsible behavior. Conclusions Notwithstanding the methodological limitations of survey research, these findings indicate that a substantial proportion of HPE researchers report a range of misconduct and QRPs. Consequently, reforms may be needed to improve the conduct of HPE research.