Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: A national survey

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 365-369

  Pryor, Erica R ^a   Habermann, Barbara ^a   Broome, Marion E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; ETHICS; FEMALE; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MIDDLE AGED; MOTIVATION; PERSONNEL; POLICY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; UNITED STATES; WORKPLACE;

ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOTIVATION; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; QUESTIONNAIRES; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; UNITED STATES; WORKPLACE;

EID: 34250748511     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2006.016394     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service policies on research misconduct: final rule. 42 CFR parts 50 and 93. Fed Reg 2005;70:28370-28400.
2. Weed D. Preventing scientific misconduct. Am J Public Health 1998;88:125-9.
3. Wilmshurst P. The code of silence. Lancet 1997; 349:567-9.
4. Hals A, Jacobsen G. Dishonesty in medical research: a questionnaire study among project administrators in Health Region 4. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1993;113:3149-52.
5. Tongney JP. Fraud will out - or will it? New Sci 1987; 115:62-3.
6. Swazey JP, Anderson MS, Lewis KS. Ethical problems in academic research. Am Sci 1993;81:542-53.
7. Glick LJ, Shamoo AE. Results of a survey on research practices, completed by attendees at the Third Conference on Research Policies and Quality Assurance. Account Res 1994;3:275-80.
8. Shapiro MF. Data audits in investigational drug trials and their implications for detection of misconduct in science. In: Lock S, Wells F, eds. Fraud and misconduct in medical research. London: BMJ, 1993:128-41.
9. Weiss RB, Vogelzang NJ, Peterson BA, et al. A successful system of scientific data audits for clinical trials: a report from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B. JAMA 1993;270:459-64.
10. Ranstam J, Buyse M, George SL, et al. Fraud in medical research: an international survey of biostatisticians. ISCB Subcommittee on Fraud. Control Clin Trials 2000;21:415-27.
11. Gebbie D. A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards research fraud. J Med Ethics 2001;27:344-6.
12. Gardner W, Lidz CW, Hartwig KC. Authors' reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials 2005; 26:244-51.
13. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, deVries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005;435:737-8.
14. Gaddis B, Helton-Fauth W, Scott G, et al. Development of two measures of climate for scientific organizations. Account Res 2003;10:253-88.
15. LaFolletle M. Research misconduct. Society 1994; 31:6-10.
16. Rankin M, Esteves M. Perceptions of scientific misconduct in nursing. Nurs Res 1997;46:270-6.
17. Mueller MR, Mamo L. Changes in medicine, changes in nursing: career contingencies and the movement of nurses into clinical trial coordination. Social Perspect 2000;43:S43-57.
18. Papke A. The ACP national job analysis of the clinical research coordinator. Monitor 1996;10:45-53.
19. Broome M, Pryor E, Habermann B, et al. The Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMR-Q): validation and psychometric testing. Account Res 2005;12:263-80.
20. Dillman DA. Mail and telephone questionnaires: the total design method. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.
21. Fink A. How to sample in questionnaires. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.
22. Fry ST, Duffy ME. The development and psychometric evaluation of the Ethical Issues Scale. J Nurs Scholars 2001;33:273-7.