Perceived Organizational Justice and Scientific Dishone*

机构审查委员会（IRB）面临的问题以及科学不端行为的原因和程度在两个独立的科学文献中进行了描述。 然而，两者之间可能的关系尚未得到系统的探讨。 从大量的组织公正的研究，它是适应预测，认为IRB的过程和决策的不公平性可能会导致一系列的调查人员不专业的反应。 这些反应包括降低对IRB裁决的遵守，不良的科学家公民身份和科学不端行为。将进行三项调查来研究这些现象。由于IRB/调查员的关系是不同的显着的方式从通常的设置中进行组织正义研究的各方，一个大规模的调查已经设计，以探讨如何重要的IRB正义问题是调查。 IRB的属性分为八个类别，将由大样本的研究科学家进行评级，并通过结构方程模型进行验证性因素分析。 社会和行为科学调查人员的第二项研究探讨了这样一个假设，即IRB对分配（结果）、程序（如何做出决定）和干预（人际敏感性）公正的感知会影响对科学不诚实的反对程度。 具体而言，假设当IRB行为被描述为不公正时，与IRB行为被描述为公正时相比，不当行为的严重性将被评定为较低，对违规研究者的同情（如插图所示）将被评定为较高。 最后，还提出了一个试点项目，以收集相关的关键事件。从这三项研究中学到的东西在设计建议时可能非常有用，以促进研究者认为IRB是公平的。

Problems facing Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and the causes and extent of scientific misconduct are described in two separate bodies of scientific literature. The probable relationship between the two, however, has not been systematically explored. Adapting from the substantial research on organizational justice, it is predicted that perceived unfairness of IRB processes and decisions can result in a range of unprofessional responses by investigators. Such responses include lowered compliance with IRB rulings, poor scientist citizenship, and scientific misconduct. Three surveys will be conducted to study these phenomena. Because IRB/investigator relationships are different in significant ways from the parties in the usual settings in which organizational justice research is conducted, a large-scale survey has been designed to explore how important IRB justice issues are to investigators. Attributes of IRBs fall into eight categories that will be rated by a large sample of research scientists and analyzed by confirmatory factor analysis through structural equation modeling. A second study of social and behavioral science investigators explores the hypothesis that perceived distributive (outcome), procedural (how the decision was made), and interactional (interpersonal sensitivity) justice on the part of IRBs influences the degree of disapproval of scientific dishonesty. Specifically, it is hypothesized that the seriousness of misconduct will be rated lower and sympathy for the offending investigator (as portrayed in a vignette) will be rated higher when an IRB action is portrayed as unjust as compared to IRB actions portrayed as just. Finally, a pilot project to gather relevant critical incidents is also proposed. What is learned from these three studies could be extremely useful in designing recommendations to promote ways that IRBs will be perceived of as fair by investigators.