BMC Medical Ethics 14 (1):3- (2013)

Abstract
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.MethodAnonymous 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
Keywords Dishonesty  Fabrication  Falsification  Plagiarism  Misconduct
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-14-3
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,177
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Ethics and Social Science: Which Kind of Co-Operation? [REVIEW]Dieter Birnbacher - 1999 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2 (4):319-336.
What ‘Empirical Turn in Bioethics’?Samia Hurst - 2010 - Bioethics 24 (8):439-444.

View all 23 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-11-17

Total views
483 ( #18,460 of 2,499,677 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #418,206 of 2,499,677 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes