Research Coordinators' Experiences With Scientific Misconduct and Research Integrity

Barbara Habermann · Marion E. Broome · Erica R. Pryor · Kim Wagler Ziner

46 citations0/0 files storedNursing Research

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Academic integrity and plagiarism Ethics in Business and Education Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most reports of scientific misconduct have been focused on principal investigators and other scientists (e.g., biostatisticians) involved in the research enterprise. However, by virtue of their position, research coordinators are often closest to the research field where much of misconduct occurs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe research coordinators' experiences with scientific misconduct in their clinical environment. DESIGN: The descriptive design was embedded in a larger cross-sectional national survey. A total of 266 respondents, predominately registered nurses, who answered "yes" to having firsthand knowledge of scientific misconduct in the past year, provided open-ended question responses. METHODS: Content analysis was conducted by the research team, ensuring agreement of core categories and subcategories of misconduct. FINDINGS: Research coordinators most commonly learned about misconduct via firsthand witness of the event, with the principal investigator being the person most commonly identified as the responsible party. Five major categories of misconduct were identified: protocol violations, consent violations, fabrication, falsification, and financial conflict of interest. In 70% of cases, the misconduct was reported. In most instances where misconduct was reported, some action was taken. However, in approximately 14% of cases, no action or investigation ensued; in 6.5% of cases, the coordinator was fired or he or she resigned. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the need to expand definitions of scientific misconduct beyond fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism to include other practices. The importance of the ethical climate in the institution in ensuring a safe environment to report and an environment where evidence is reviewed cannot be overlooked.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 46 citations exist upstream.

References

1984Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.2002Qualitative research & evaluation methods 2005Scientists behaving badly 2006Normal Misbehavior: Scientists Talk about the Ethics of Research 1993Ethical Problems in Academic Research 2007Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case Files 1998Preventing scientific misconduct.2005Authors' reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials

Cited by

2020On the Willingness to Report and the Consequences of Reporting Research Misconduct: The Role of Power Relations 2020Scientific misconduct and associated factors: A survey of researchers in three Chinese tertiary hospitals 2014Scientific Misconduct: Also an Issue in Nursing Science?2014Establishing good collaborative research practices in the responsible conduct of research in nursing science

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.