Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Jun;33(6):365-9.
doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.016394.

Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: a national survey

Affiliations

Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: a national survey

Erica R Pryor et al. J Med Ethics. 2007 Jun.

Abstract

Objective: To report results from a national survey of coordinators and managers of clinical research studies in the US on their perceptions of and experiences with scientific misconduct.

Methods: Data were collected using the Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised. Eligible responses were received from 1645 of 5302 (31%) surveys sent to members of the Association of Clinical Research Professionals and to subscribers of Research Practitioner, published by the Center for Clinical Research Practice, between February 2004 and January 2005.

Findings: Overall, the perceived frequency of misconduct was low. Differences were noted between workplaces with regard to perceived pressures on investigators and research coordinators, and on the effectiveness of the regulatory environment in reducing misconduct. First-hand experience with an incident of misconduct was reported by 18% of respondents. Those with first-hand knowledge of misconduct were more likely to report working in an academic medical setting, and to report that a typical research coordinator would probably do nothing if aware that a principal investigator or research staff member was involved in an incident of misconduct.

Conclusion: These findings expand the knowledge on scientific misconduct by adding new information from the perspective of research coordinators. The findings provide some data supporting the influence of workplace climate on misconduct and also on the perceived effectiveness of institutional policies to reduce scientific misconduct.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. United States Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service policies on research misconduct: final rule. 42 CFR parts 50 and 93. Fed Reg 20057028370–28400. - PubMed
    1. Weed D. Preventing scientific misconduct. Am J Public Health 199888125–129. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wilmshurst P. The code of silence. Lancet 1997349567–569. - PubMed
    1. Hals A, Jacobsen G. Dishonesty in medical research: a questionnaire study among project administrators in Health Region 4. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 19931133149–3152. - PubMed
    1. Tangney J P. Fraud will out—or will it? New Sci 198711562–63. - PubMed

Publication types