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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2023 Sep 29;13(1):16371.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-42121-1.

Biomedical doctoral students' research practices when facing dilemmas: two vignette-based randomized control trials

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Biomedical doctoral students' research practices when facing dilemmas: two vignette-based randomized control trials

V T Nguyen et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Our aim was to describe the research practices of doctoral students facing a dilemma to research integrity and to assess the impact of inappropriate research environments, i.e. exposure to (a) a post-doctoral researcher who committed a Detrimental Research Practice (DRP) in a similar situation and (b) a supervisor who did not oppose the DRP. We conducted two 2-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trials. We created 10 vignettes describing a realistic dilemma with two alternative courses of action (good practice versus DRP). 630 PhD students were randomized through an online system to a vignette (a) with (n = 151) or without (n = 164) exposure to a post-doctoral researcher; (b) with (n = 155) or without (n = 160) exposure to a supervisor. The primary outcome was a score from - 5 to + 5, where positive scores indicated the choice of DRP and negative scores indicated good practice. Overall, 37% of unexposed participants chose to commit DRP with important variation across vignettes (minimum 10%; maximum 66%). The mean difference [95%CI] was 0.17 [- 0.65 to 0.99;], p = 0.65 when exposed to the post-doctoral researcher, and 0.79 [- 0.38; 1.94], p = 0.16, when exposed to the supervisor. In conclusion, we did not find evidence of an impact of postdoctoral researchers and supervisors on student research practices.Trial registration: NCT04263805, NCT04263506 (registration date 11 February 2020).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial design.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Participants’ flow diagram.
Figure 3
Figure 3
PhD students’ research practice assessed on first vignette (before intervention).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Impact of the exposure to a postdoctoral researcher’s experience environmental factors on PhD student’s research practices.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Impact of the exposure to a supervisor who does not object DRP on PhD student’s research practices.

References

    1. Godlee F, Smith J, Marcovitch H. Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ. 2011;342:c7452. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c7452. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dyer C. Cancer patients were enrolled in “fraudulent” research, US lawsuit alleges. BMJ. 2011;343:d5986. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5986. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Saunders R, Savulescu J. Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: What can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud? J. Med. Eth. 2008;34:214–221. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.023721. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2012;109:17028–17033. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Anderson C, Nugent K, Peterson C. Academic journal retractions and the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Prim. Care Community Health. 2021;12:21501327211015590. doi: 10.1177/21501327211015592. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data