Barrett Kirsten A, Funk Carolyn L, Macrina Francis L
The Philips Institute, Virginia Commonwealth University, PO Box 980566, Richmond, VA 23298-0566, USA.
Account Res. 2005 Jul-Sep;12(3):193-206. doi: 10.1080/08989620500217321.
We have conducted a longitudinal survey of NIH-funded F32 postdoctoral fellows to determine if mandated instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) has measurable effects on awareness of, attentiveness to, and behavioral judgments about research ethics and authorship and publication. Of 418 F32 fellows participating in the study, 50% were aware of and had referred to guidelines on authorship and publication practices while 50% were either unaware of or had not referred to guidelines. Groups were similar with regard to total number of peer-reviewed publications and total number of first author publications, years of research experience, years since completing their doctoral degree, and receipt of RCR training. The equal distribution of guideline awareness and use, and group similarities with regard to career development and achievement provided us with an opportunity to consider whether awareness of and use of guidelines is associated with broader judgments about author roles and responsibilities. The findings suggest that awareness and utilization of guidelines are, at best, only modestly associated with more ethically appropriate judgments and attitudes about author roles and responsibilities among novice F32's.
我们对美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）资助的F32博士后研究员进行了一项纵向调查，以确定关于科研行为责任（RCR）的强制性指导是否对科研伦理、作者身份及发表方面的意识、关注度和行为判断产生可衡量的影响。参与该研究的418名F32研究员中，50%知晓并参考过关于作者身份和发表规范的指南，而另外50%要么不知道这些指南，要么未参考过。两组在同行评审出版物总数、第一作者出版物总数、研究经验年限、获得博士学位后的年限以及接受RCR培训方面相似。指南意识和使用的均等分布，以及两组在职业发展和成就方面的相似性，为我们提供了一个机会来思考指南的意识和使用是否与对作者角色和责任的更广泛判断相关。研究结果表明，对于初入F32项目的新手而言，指南的意识和使用充其量仅与对作者角色和责任的更符合伦理规范的判断及态度存在适度关联。
