Centre of Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
BMC Med Ethics. 2013 Jan 5;14:3. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-14-3.
BACKGROUND: The knowledge of scientific dishonesty is scarce and heterogeneous. Therefore this study investigates the experiences with and the attitudes towards various forms of scientific dishonesty among PhD-students at the medical faculties of all Norwegian universities. METHOD: Anonymous questionnaire distributed to all post graduate students attending introductory PhD-courses at all medical faculties in Norway in 2010/2011. Descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 189 of 262 questionnaires were returned (72.1%). 65% of the respondents had not, during the last year, heard or read about researchers who committed scientific dishonesty. One respondent had experienced pressure to fabricate and to falsify data, and one had experienced pressure to plagiarize data. On average 60% of the respondents were uncertain whether their department had a written policy concerning scientific conduct. About 11% of the respondents had experienced unethical pressure concerning the order of authors during the last 12 months. 10% did not find it inappropriate to report experimental data without having conducted the experiment and 38% did not find it inappropriate to try a variety of different methods of analysis to find a statistically significant result. 13% agreed that it is acceptable to selectively omit contradictory results to expedite publication and 10% found it acceptable to falsify or fabricate data to expedite publication, if they were confident of their findings. 79% agreed that they would be willing to report misconduct to a responsible official. CONCLUSION: Although there is less scientific dishonesty reported in Norway than in other countries, dishonesty is not unknown to doctoral students. Some forms of scientific misconduct are considered to be acceptable by a significant minority. There was little awareness of relevant policies for scientific conduct, but a high level of willingness to report misconduct.
背景:科学不端行为的知识相对匮乏且具有异质性。因此,本研究调查了所有挪威大学医学院博士生对各种形式科学不端行为的经历和态度。
方法:2010/2011 年,向所有参加挪威所有医学院博士课程的研究生发放匿名问卷。描述性统计。
结果:262 份问卷中,189 份(72.1%)被收回。65%的受访者在过去一年中没有听说或读到过有研究人员从事科学不端行为。一名受访者曾受到伪造和篡改数据的压力,一名受访者曾受到抄袭数据的压力。平均而言,60%的受访者不确定他们的部门是否有关于科学行为的书面政策。大约 11%的受访者在过去 12 个月中曾因作者顺序问题受到不道德的压力。10%的人认为在没有进行实验的情况下报告实验数据是不合适的,38%的人认为尝试多种不同的分析方法以找到具有统计学意义的结果是不合适的。13%的人同意选择性地省略矛盾的结果以加快发表是可以接受的,10%的人认为为了加快发表而伪造或捏造数据是可以接受的,如果他们对自己的发现有信心。79%的人同意他们愿意向负责人报告不当行为。
结论:尽管挪威报告的科学不端行为比其他国家少,但博士生并不陌生。一些形式的科学不端行为被少数人认为是可以接受的。对科学行为相关政策的认识很少,但报告不当行为的意愿很高。
BMC Med Ethics. 2013-1-5
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015-10
J Med Ethics. 2010-5-3
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2016-9-27
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020-10
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2023
Dev World Bioeth. 2012-9-20
Account Res. 2018-6-25
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023-10-13
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2023-6-29
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2023
J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2022-3-8
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021-12-21
Saudi J Biol Sci. 2020-9
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020-10
Nature. 2012-1-18
BMJ. 2011-12-28
Nature. 2011-12-7
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010-9
J Med Ethics. 2010-8-25
Sci Eng Ethics. 2010-6-10
J Med Ethics. 2010-5-3
Am J Pharm Educ. 2009-10-1