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
. 2020 Oct;15(4):320-329.
doi: 10.1177/1556264620929230. Epub 2020 Jun 12.

Research Integrity Among PhD Students at the Faculty of Medicine: A Comparison of Three Scandinavian Universities

Bjørn Hofmann  1   2 , Lone Bredahl Jensen  3 , Mette Brandt Eriksen  3 , Gert Helgesson  4 , Niklas Juth  4 , Søren Holm  1   5
Affiliations

Research Integrity Among PhD Students at the Faculty of Medicine: A Comparison of Three Scandinavian Universities

Bjørn Hofmann et al. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020 Oct.

Abstract

This study investigates research integrity among PhD students in health sciences at three universities in Scandinavia (Stockholm, Oslo, Odense). A questionnaire with questions on knowledge, attitudes, experiences, and behavior was distributed to PhD students and obtained a response rate of 77.7%. About 10% of the respondents agreed that research misconduct strictly defined (such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, FFP) is common in their area of research, while slightly more agreed that other forms of misconduct is common. A nonnegligible segment of the respondents was willing to fabricate, falsify, or omit contradicting data if they believe that they are right in their overall conclusions. Up to one third reported to have added one or more authors unmerited. Results showed a negative correlation between "good attitudes" and self-reported misconduct and a positive correlation between how frequent respondents thought that misconduct occurs and whether they reported misconduct themselves. This reveals that existing educational and research systems partly fail to foster research integrity.

Keywords: attitudes; doctoral students; integrity; knowledge; misconduct; practice; science ethics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Antonelli M., Sandroni C. (2013). Hydroxyethyl starch for intravenous volume replacement: More harm than benefit. Journal of the American Medical Association, 309(7), 723–724. - PubMed
    1. Bosch X., Hernandez C., Pericas J. M., Doti P., Marusic A. (2012). Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals. PLOS ONE, 7(12), Article e51928. 10.1371/journal.pone.0051928 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bouter L. M., Tijdink J., Axelsen N., Martinson B. C., Ter Riet G. (2016). Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: Results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1(1), 17. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Elgesem D., Jåsund K., Kaiser M. (1997). Fusk i forskningen. En studie av uredelighet og diskutable forskning ved norske universiteter [Fraud in research. A study of dishonesty and questionable research at Norwegian universities]. De nasjonale forskningsetiske komiteer.
    1. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. (2017). (Rev. ed.). All European Academies.

LinkOut - more resources