• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

评估美国医学院校在教育教师研究员了解研究诚信和研究不端行为政策和程序方面的努力。

Evaluating U.S. medical schools' efforts to educate faculty researchers on research integrity and research misconduct policies and procedures.

机构信息

a Department of Health and Human Services , Office of Research Integrity , Rockville , Maryland , USA.

出版信息

Account Res. 2014;21(1):9-25. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822264.

DOI:10.1080/08989621.2013.822264
PMID:24073604
Abstract

This paper examines how well U.S. medical school institutions are doing to promote research integrity. It is an important question to ask in order to determine whether there are sufficient and adequate protections in place to protect the U.S. Public Health Service's (PHS) resources devoted to medical research. This paper focuses on 5,100 medical school researchers' knowledge of what constitutes research misconduct as well as their willingness to report it to the research integrity officer (RIO) and educate their Ph.D. trainees. We learned that 5.6% of researchers could correctly distinguish seven or more of the nine scenarios that depicted likely research misconduct, as defined by the PHS regulations, from scenarios describing other ethical issues. Instead, researchers had expansive definitions and often inappropriately identified infractions such as conflicts of interest, Institutional Review Board (IRB) violations, and other breaches in ethical standards to be research misconduct. In addition, researchers who correctly identified four instances of likely research misconduct in the test items were highly unlikely to report their observations to a RIO. Researchers also provided insight on the factors they believe influence their decision making process of whether to report research misconduct. In addition, this paper also reports on the guidance that faculty said they provided their trainees on research misconduct issues. We conclude with a discussion and recommendations on what institutional leaders might consider doing in order to enhance their research integrity efforts and protect their institution's reputation.

摘要

本文探讨了美国医学院校在促进研究诚信方面的表现如何。这是一个重要的问题,需要确定是否有足够和充分的保护措施来保护美国公共卫生服务部(PHS)用于医学研究的资源。本文重点关注 5100 名医学院校研究人员对构成研究不端行为的认识,以及他们向研究诚信官员(RIO)报告并教育他们的博士研究生的意愿。我们了解到,5.6%的研究人员能够正确区分七个或更多的九个场景,这些场景描述了 PHS 法规定义的可能的研究不端行为,而不是描述其他道德问题的场景。相反,研究人员的定义过于宽泛,并且经常不恰当地将利益冲突、机构审查委员会(IRB)违规以及其他违反道德标准的行为认定为研究不端行为。此外,在测试项目中正确识别出四个可能的研究不端行为的研究人员极不可能向 RIO 报告他们的观察结果。研究人员还就他们认为影响他们报告研究不端行为决策过程的因素提供了见解。此外,本文还报告了教师对他们在研究不端行为问题上向学生提供的指导。我们以讨论和建议结束,内容涉及机构领导者为了加强研究诚信工作和保护机构声誉可能需要考虑的事项。

相似文献

1
Evaluating U.S. medical schools' efforts to educate faculty researchers on research integrity and research misconduct policies and procedures.评估美国医学院校在教育教师研究员了解研究诚信和研究不端行为政策和程序方面的努力。
Account Res. 2014;21(1):9-25. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822264.
2
Letter to the editor: medical school, research misconduct policies, and procedures.致编辑的信:医学院、研究行为不当政策及程序
Account Res. 2014;21(6):401-2. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.866046.
3
A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research.一项关于生物医学研究中利益冲突披露政策的全国性调查。
N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 30;343(22):1621-6. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200011303432207.
4
Assessing the seriousness of research misconduct: considerations for sanction assignment.评估研究不当行为的严重性:制裁分配的考量因素。
Account Res. 2006 Apr-Jun;13(2):179-205. doi: 10.1080/08989620500440261.
5
Is failure to raise concerns about misconduct a breach of integrity? Researchers' reflections on reporting misconduct.未能对不当行为提出关注是否违反诚信原则?研究人员对举报不当行为的反思。
Account Res. 2018;25(6):311-339. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2018.1493577. Epub 2018 Jul 13.
6
Conflict-of-interest policies for investigators in clinical trials.临床试验中研究者的利益冲突政策。
N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 30;343(22):1616-20. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200011303432206.
7
The troublesome semantics of conflict of interest.利益冲突令人头疼的语义问题。
Ethics Behav. 1992;2(4):245-51. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb0204_2.
8
Medical school guidelines for investigating misconduct and fraud in science.医学院关于调查科学领域不当行为和欺诈行为的指导方针。
Account Res. 1992;2(3):179-87. doi: 10.1080/08989629208573814.
9
The New Academic Environment and Faculty Misconduct.新的学术环境与教师不当行为。
Acad Med. 2016 Feb;91(2):175-9. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000956.
10
Research integrity and academic medicine: the pressure to publish and research misconduct.研究诚信与学术医学:发表压力与研究不端行为。
J Osteopath Med. 2024 Feb 27;124(5):187-194. doi: 10.1515/jom-2023-0211. eCollection 2024 May 1.

引用本文的文献

1
A Comparative Study on the Construction of Research Integrity in Public Medical Universities/Colleges in China: 2020-2024.中国公立医科大学/学院科研诚信建设的比较研究:2020 - 2024年
Sci Eng Ethics. 2025 Apr 9;31(2):11. doi: 10.1007/s11948-025-00538-z.
2
Stop ignoring misconduct.不要再对不当行为视而不见。
Nature. 2016 Sep 1;537(7618):29-30. doi: 10.1038/537029a.
3
Foreword.前言。
Account Res. 2015;22(6):307-11. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2015.1047710.