Evaluation of the research norms of scientists and administrators responsible for academic research integrity
Evaluation of the research norms of scientists and administrators responsible for academic research integrity
复制标题
DOI：
10.1001/jama.279.1.41
复制
发表时间：
1998-01-07
影响因子：
120.7
通讯作者：
Lew, V
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Korenman, SG;Berk, R;Lew, V
背景。-科学家的职业操守对整个社会非常重要，特别是对医学等严重依赖科学进步的学科。描述活跃的科学家的专业规范，并将其与具有研究机构责任的个人进行比较。一项邮寄调查，包括4个研究伦理领域的12个场景。受访者被问到一种行为是否是不道德的，如果是，他们认为这是不道德的程度，并选择对该行为的反应和惩罚。1993年或1994年共有924名国家科学基金会分子或细胞生物学研究赠款获得者和140名来自研究机构的代表参加了美国卫生和人类服务部研究诚信办公室。认为行为不道德的受访者百分比和1至10级的平均渎职评级。共有606名研究补助金获得者和91名机构代表回答了调查（回答率为69%）。受访者报告了一系列不道德的研究行为。平均渎职评级是无关的调查员执行的假设行为或其后果的特点。捏造、伪造和剽窃的渎职评分高于8.6，几乎所有人都认为它们是不道德的。故意误导性陈述或未能给予适当的归属收到7至8之间的评级。马虎、疏忽、利益冲突和不分享的情况也不那么严重，渎职的评级在5到6之间。机构代表提出了更多和不同的干预和惩罚比科学家。被调查的科学家和机构代表有强烈的和相似的职业行为规范，但他们对不道德行为的态度不同。
Context.-The professional integrity of scientists is important to society as a whole and particularly to disciplines such as medicine that depend heavily on scientific advances for their progress.Objective.-To characterize the professional norms of active scientists and compare them with those of individuals with institutional responsibility for the conduct of research.Design.-A mailed survey consisting of 12 scenarios in 4 domains of research ethics. Respondents were asked whether an act was unethical and, if so, the degree to which they considered it unethical and to select responses and punishments for the act.Participants.-A total of 924 National Science Foundation research grantees in 1993 or 1994 in molecular or cellular biology and 140 representatives from the researchers' institutions to the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity.Main Outcome Measures.-Percentage of respondents considering an act unethical and the mean malfeasance rating on a scale of 1 to 10.Results.-A total of 606 research grantees and 91 institutional representatives responded to the survey (response rate of 69% of those who could be contacted). Respondents reported a hierarchy of unethical research behaviors. The mean malfeasance rating was unrelated to the characteristics of the investigator performing the hypothetical act or to its consequences. Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism received malfeasance ratings higher than 8.6, and virtually all thought they were unethical. Deliberately misleading statements about a paper or failure to give proper attribution received ratings between 7 and 8. Sloppiness, oversights, conflicts of interest, and failure to share were less serious still, receiving malfeasance ratings between 5 and 6. Institutional representatives proposed more and different interventions and punishments than the scientists.Conclusions.-Surveyed scientists and institutional representatives had strong and similar norms of professional behavior, but differed in their approaches to an unethical act.