a Department of Research in Biomedicine in Health , University of Split School of Medicine , Split , Croatia.
b Research Office , University of Split School of Medicine , Split , Croatia.
Account Res. 2018;25(4):220-238. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2018.1463162. Epub 2018 Apr 22.
The aim of our study has been to use a qualitative approach to explore the potential motivations and drivers for unethical behaviors in biomedicine and determine the role of institutions regarding those issues in a small scientific community setting. Three focus groups were held---two with doctoral students and one with active senior researchers. Purposive sampling was used to reach participants at different stages of their scientific careers. Participants in all three focus groups were asked the same questions regarding the characteristics and behaviors of ethical/unethical scientists, ethical climate, role, and responsibility of institutions; they were also asked to suggest ways to improve research integrity. The data analysis included coding of the transcripts, categorization of the initial codes, and identification of themes and patterns. Three main topics were derived from the focus groups discussions. The first included different forms of unethical behaviors including increasing research "waste," non-publication of negative results, authorship manipulation, data manipulation, and repression of collaborators. The second addressed the factors influencing unethical behavior, both external and internal, to the researchers. Two different definitions of ethics in science emerged; one from the categorical perspective and the other from the dimensional perspective. The third topic involved possible routes for improvement, one from within the institution through the research integrity education, research integrity bodies, and quality control, and the other from outside the institution through external supervision of institutions. Based on the results of our study, research misconduct in a small scientific community is perceived to be the consequence of the interaction of several social and psychological factors, both general and specific, for small research communities. Possible improvements should be systematic, aiming both for improvements in work environment and personal awareness in research ethics, and the implementation of those changes should be institutional responsibility.
我们的研究目的是采用定性方法，探索生物医学领域不道德行为的潜在动机和驱动因素，并确定在小型科研社区环境下，各机构在这些问题上的作用。我们组织了三次焦点小组讨论，其中两次是针对博士生，一次是针对活跃的资深研究人员。采用目的性抽样，以便在不同科研阶段接触到参与者。所有三个焦点小组的参与者都被问到了关于道德/不道德科学家的特征和行为、道德氛围、机构的角色和责任、以及改进研究诚信的方法等相同的问题。数据分析包括对记录的编码、初始代码的分类以及主题和模式的识别。从焦点小组讨论中得出了三个主要主题。第一个主题包括不同形式的不道德行为，包括增加研究“浪费”、不发表负面结果、作者身份操纵、数据操纵和压制合作者。第二个主题涉及影响研究人员不道德行为的外部和内部因素。科学中的伦理出现了两种不同的定义；一种来自分类视角，另一种来自维度视角。第三个主题涉及可能的改进途径，一种是通过机构内部的研究诚信教育、研究诚信机构和质量控制，另一种是通过机构外部的外部监督。基于我们的研究结果，在小型科研社区中，研究不端行为被认为是几个社会和心理因素相互作用的结果，这些因素既有一般性的，也有特定于小型研究社区的。可能的改进应该是系统性的，既要改善工作环境，又要提高研究伦理意识，并将这些变化的实施作为机构的责任。
