Suppr超能文献

生物医学博士生在面对困境时的研究实践:两项基于情景描述的随机对照试验。

Biomedical doctoral students' research practices when facing dilemmas: two vignette-based randomized control trials.

机构信息

Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Université Paris Cité and Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Inserm, INRAE, 75004, Paris, France.

Department of Health Services Research, Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2023 Sep 29;13(1):16371. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-42121-1.

Abstract

Our aim was to describe the research practices of doctoral students facing a dilemma to research integrity and to assess the impact of inappropriate research environments, i.e. exposure to (a) a post-doctoral researcher who committed a Detrimental Research Practice (DRP) in a similar situation and (b) a supervisor who did not oppose the DRP. We conducted two 2-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trials. We created 10 vignettes describing a realistic dilemma with two alternative courses of action (good practice versus DRP). 630 PhD students were randomized through an online system to a vignette (a) with (n = 151) or without (n = 164) exposure to a post-doctoral researcher; (b) with (n = 155) or without (n = 160) exposure to a supervisor. The primary outcome was a score from - 5 to + 5, where positive scores indicated the choice of DRP and negative scores indicated good practice. Overall, 37% of unexposed participants chose to commit DRP with important variation across vignettes (minimum 10%; maximum 66%). The mean difference [95%CI] was 0.17 [- 0.65 to 0.99;], p = 0.65 when exposed to the post-doctoral researcher, and 0.79 [- 0.38; 1.94], p = 0.16, when exposed to the supervisor. In conclusion, we did not find evidence of an impact of postdoctoral researchers and supervisors on student research practices.Trial registration: NCT04263805, NCT04263506 (registration date 11 February 2020).

摘要

我们的目的是描述博士生在面临研究诚信困境时的研究实践,并评估不适当的研究环境的影响,即接触(a)在类似情况下犯有有害研究行为(DRP)的博士后研究员和(b)不反对 DRP 的导师。我们进行了两项 2 臂平行组随机对照试验。我们创建了 10 个描述真实困境的情景描述,其中有两种替代行动方案(良好实践与 DRP)。630 名博士生通过在线系统随机分配到一个情景(a)中接触(n=151)或不接触(n=164)博士后研究员;(b)接触(n=155)或不接触(n=160)导师。主要结局是从-5 到+5 的评分,其中正评分表示选择 DRP,负评分表示良好实践。总体而言,37%的未接触参与者选择实施 DRP,不同情景之间存在重要差异(最小 10%;最大 66%)。平均差异[95%CI]为 0.17[-0.65;0.99],与博士后研究员接触时 p=0.65,与导师接触时为 0.79[-0.38;1.94],p=0.16。总之,我们没有发现博士后研究员和导师对学生研究实践有影响的证据。试验注册:NCT04263805,NCT04263506(注册日期 2020 年 2 月 11 日)。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7a54/10541422/12ed0e3137a0/41598_2023_42121_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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