A Collegial Defense Against Irresponsible Science

关于科学不端行为的报道是否准确，或者公开的不负责任的研究案例是否只是冰山一角，仍在争论之中。虽然备受瞩目的举报人案件吸引了广泛的关注，但几乎没有人知道，更温和的幕后合议干预措施可以减少无效或不适当的研究进入科学文献的频率。这个项目的重点是当同事们知道有意或无意的不负责任的科学时，专业自我调节的尝试。例如，不负责任的科学包括粗心的工作习惯，不称职的研究，对研究助理的监督不足，以及捏造和伪造。两项在线调查将从接受PHS资助的调查人员中抽取约10，000名生物医学和社会行为研究人员。受访者将被问及他们处理同行同事或研究助理所犯下的几种不负责任的科学行为的经验。计划中的比较将阐明第一手或道听途说事件的了解率、干预率、干预发生的情况、良好结果与不良结果的区别、对集体责任的信念与实际干预的关系、为什么同事决定不干预、哪些行为似乎更有可能引发干预，以及与同事同行和研究助理的干预模式的差异。将从调查受访者中征求保密电话采访，并通过科学通讯中的公告，以探索合议干预中涉及的更详细的定性因素。根据调查和访谈结果，将向接受调查或访谈的每一位调查员发送干预指南，请他们提供反馈。最后的指南将讨论干预战略，并包括伪装的案例和角色扮演情景供培训之用，并将张贴在一个永久性的公共网页上。

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Whether reports of scientific misconduct are accurate or whether publicized cases of irresponsible research represent merely the tip of the iceberg continues to be debated. Whereas high-profile cases of whistleblowers have attracted wide publicity, almost nothing is known about, gentler, behind-the-scenes collegial interventions that reduce the frequency of invalid or inappropriate research from entering the scientific literature. This project focuses on attempts at professional self-regulation when intentional or unintentional irresponsible science become known by colleagues. As examples, irresponsible science includes careless work habits, incompetent research, and inadequate supervision of research assistants, as well as fabrication and falsification. 2 online surveys will sample approximately 10,000 biomedical and social-behavioral researchers drawn from the pool of investigators receiving PHS funding. Respondents will be queried about their experiences dealing with several forms of irresponsible science committed by their peer colleagues or research assistants. Planned comparisons will elucidate the rate of learning about incidents first-hand or by hearsay, rate of intervention, circumstances under which intervention occurs, what differentiates good from poor outcomes, how belief in collective responsibility relates to actual intervention, why colleagues decide not to intervene, what acts seem more likely to elicit intervention, and differences in intervention patterns with colleague peers and research assistants. Confidential telephone interviews will be solicited from survey respondents and through announcements in scientific newsletters to explore more detailed qualitative factors involved in collegial intervention. Based on survey and interview findings, a guide to intervention will be sent to every investigator surveyed or interviewed, requesting feedback. The final guide will discuss strategies for intervention, and include disguised cases and role playing scenarios for training purposes and will be posted on a permanent public web page.