Evaluating U.S. medical schools' efforts to educate faculty researchers on research integrity and research misconduct policies and procedures
- PMID: 24073604
- DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822264
Evaluating U.S. medical schools' efforts to educate faculty researchers on research integrity and research misconduct policies and procedures
Abstract
This paper examines how well U.S. medical school institutions are doing to promote research integrity. It is an important question to ask in order to determine whether there are sufficient and adequate protections in place to protect the U.S. Public Health Service's (PHS) resources devoted to medical research. This paper focuses on 5,100 medical school researchers' knowledge of what constitutes research misconduct as well as their willingness to report it to the research integrity officer (RIO) and educate their Ph.D. trainees. We learned that 5.6% of researchers could correctly distinguish seven or more of the nine scenarios that depicted likely research misconduct, as defined by the PHS regulations, from scenarios describing other ethical issues. Instead, researchers had expansive definitions and often inappropriately identified infractions such as conflicts of interest, Institutional Review Board (IRB) violations, and other breaches in ethical standards to be research misconduct. In addition, researchers who correctly identified four instances of likely research misconduct in the test items were highly unlikely to report their observations to a RIO. Researchers also provided insight on the factors they believe influence their decision making process of whether to report research misconduct. In addition, this paper also reports on the guidance that faculty said they provided their trainees on research misconduct issues. We conclude with a discussion and recommendations on what institutional leaders might consider doing in order to enhance their research integrity efforts and protect their institution's reputation.
Comment in
-
Letter to the editor: medical school, research misconduct policies, and procedures.Account Res. 2014;21(6):401-2. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.866046. Account Res. 2014. PMID: 24785998 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Letter to the editor: medical school, research misconduct policies, and procedures.Account Res. 2014;21(6):401-2. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.866046. Account Res. 2014. PMID: 24785998 No abstract available.
-
A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research.N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 30;343(22):1621-6. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200011303432207. N Engl J Med. 2000. PMID: 11096171
-
Assessing the seriousness of research misconduct: considerations for sanction assignment.Account Res. 2006 Apr-Jun;13(2):179-205. doi: 10.1080/08989620500440261. Account Res. 2006. PMID: 16830407
-
The New Academic Environment and Faculty Misconduct.Acad Med. 2016 Feb;91(2):175-9. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000956. Acad Med. 2016. PMID: 26488567 Review.
-
Misconduct in medical research: whose responsibility?Intern Med J. 2003 Apr;33(4):186-91. doi: 10.1046/j.1445-5994.2003.00373.x. Intern Med J. 2003. PMID: 12680986 Review.
Cited by
-
Stop ignoring misconduct.Nature. 2016 Sep 1;537(7618):29-30. doi: 10.1038/537029a. Nature. 2016. PMID: 27582206 No abstract available.
-
Foreword.Account Res. 2015;22(6):307-11. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2015.1047710. Account Res. 2015. PMID: 26155728 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
A Comparative Study on the Construction of Research Integrity in Public Medical Universities/Colleges in China: 2020-2024.Sci Eng Ethics. 2025 Apr 9;31(2):11. doi: 10.1007/s11948-025-00538-z. Sci Eng Ethics. 2025. PMID: 40205006 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources