Research Integrity Among PhD Students at the Faculty of Medicine
A Comparison of Three Scandinavian Universities
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12807382 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Bjørn Hofmann (0000-0001-6709-4265, University of Oslo, corresponding author), Lone Bredahl (0000-0003-4633-9838), Mette Brandt Eriksen (0000-0001-6785-261X), Gert Helgesson (0000-0002-0075-0165, Karolinska Institutet), Niklas Juth (0000-0002-1339-4956, Karolinska Institutet), Søren Holm (0000-0003-1411-1855, Norwegian University of Science and Technology) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 320-329 |
| Publication date | 2020-06-12 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1556-2646 • E-ISSN: 1556-2654 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1556264620929230 |
| PMID | 32532174 |
| OpenAlex | W3034383191 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 10 |
| References cited | 24 |
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
Academic integrity · Alternative medicine · Library science · Medical education · Misconduct · Pathology · Political science · Positive correlation · Public relations · Research Data · Research integrity · Scientific Misconduct · Subject (documents · Academic integrity and plagiarism · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Clinical Psychology · Ethics in Business and Education · Law · Medicine · Psychology · Social Psychology
Aerial Digital Archaeology and Data Ethics through the Lens of Actor-Network Theory
National cross-disciplinary research ethics and integrity study
Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices
Biomedical retractions due to misconduct in Europe
Perceptions of Research Integrity Among Medical Researchers in Shanghai Teaching Hospitals
Perception of Research Misconduct in a Spanish University
Survey on the Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices of Medical Students, PhD Students, and Supervisors at the Zagreb School of Medicine in Croatia
Research Integrity Attitudes and Behaviors are Difficult to alter
Investigating questionable research practices among Iranian applied linguists
Frequency of questionable research practices in the domain of medical writing among the various health professionals of Pakistan
Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity
Scientists behaving badly
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
Scientific Dishonesty
Investigating the Reliability and Factor Structure of Kalichman’s “Survey 2
Misuse of Coauthorship in Medical Theses in Sweden
| Citations per year | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2021 - 2025 (5) |
| Highly cited | No |