Suppr超能文献

牙科研究中的伦理问题调查

Survey of ethical issues in dental research.

作者信息

Bebeau M J, Davis E L

机构信息

University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, Minneapolis 55455-0348, USA.

出版信息

J Dent Res. 1996 Feb;75(2):845-55. doi: 10.1177/00220345960750021901.

Abstract

The American Association for Dental Research (AADR) surveyed its leaders to determine their perceptions of the prevalence of problematic research practices and the possible roles AADR should play in promoting scientific integrity. Seventy-six of the 98 program chairs and Association officers (1990-1995) surveyed responded. In general, these respondents did not think that serious misconduct or sloppy science occurred more often in AADR than in other scientific disciplines. Overall, respondents rated practices that undermine the trustworthiness of science (falsifying or fabrication of research data, retaliation, failure to present negative results, failure to disclose involvement with commercial enterprises, failure to maintain research records, etc.) as more serious, but less prevalent, than practices considered disrespectful of the work of others (gift authorship, citing sources without reading them, dividing a project into many small units, etc.). All respondents said that they had observed each of the less serious problematic practices one or more times, whereas 10% reported having observed retaliation, 30% reported having observed falsification, and 54% reported having observed plagiarism one or more times. AADR leaders had observed many more instances of misconduct and other problematic research practices than had faculty surveyed by Swazey et al. (1993), supporting conclusions by Greenberg and Goldberg (1994) that status and years of experience are associated with more frequent observations of misconduct. With respect to the possible roles the AADR might play in promoting research integrity, 88% thought that AADR should develop ethics cases and materials for educational use, 78% thought that AADR should create a process for addressing allegations of misconduct, 72% thought that the Association should develop an ethics committee or consultation service, 55% thought it should create a yearly ethics symposium, and 45% thought that the AADR should develop a more specific code of ethics to complement the general code recently developed by the IADR.

摘要

美国牙科研究协会(AADR)对其领导成员进行了调查,以确定他们对有问题的研究行为的普遍程度的看法,以及AADR在促进科研诚信方面可能发挥的作用。在接受调查的98位项目负责人和协会官员(1990 - 1995年)中,有76人作出了回应。总体而言,这些受访者认为,与其他科学学科相比,AADR中严重的不当行为或草率的科研情况并不更常见。总体而言,受访者认为,破坏科学可信度的行为(伪造或编造研究数据、报复行为、未呈现负面结果、未披露与商业企业的关联、未保存研究记录等)比那些被认为不尊重他人工作的行为(挂名作者、引用文献却未阅读、将一个项目分成许多小单元等)更严重,但出现频率更低。所有受访者表示,他们都曾不止一次地观察到那些不太严重的有问题行为,而10%的受访者报告曾观察到报复行为,30%报告曾观察到伪造行为,54%报告曾不止一次地观察到剽窃行为。与Swazey等人(1993年)调查的教师相比,AADR的领导成员观察到的不当行为和其他有问题的研究行为实例更多,这支持了Greenberg和Goldberg(1994年)的结论,即地位和工作年限与更频繁地观察到不当行为有关。关于AADR在促进研究诚信方面可能发挥的作用,88%的人认为AADR应该编写用于教育的伦理案例和材料,78%的人认为AADR应该建立一个处理不当行为指控的程序,72%的人认为协会应该设立一个伦理委员会或咨询服务机构,55%的人认为应该举办年度伦理研讨会,45%的人认为AADR应该制定更具体的伦理准则,以补充国际牙科研究协会(IADR)最近制定的通用准则。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验