A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards research fraud
Other content recommended for you
- Research integrity: we are all accountable
- Neutralising fair credit: factors that influence unethical authorship practices
- Bad behaviour does not equal research fraud
- Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: a national survey
- Should research fraud be a crime?
- Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?
- Whistleblowing in academic medicine
- Dealing with scientific misconduct
- Why unethical papers should be retracted
- The White Bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism
Jump to comment:
Professor Williamson makes a valid point about the term "research fraud" and I agree that the term covers a number of different categories of unethical behaviour. I also pointed out that "Research fraud can take many forms" in the discussion section of my paper. For the purposes of my article I stated that consultants who had answered "Yes" to questions 1,2 or 3 of table 1 had reported "observed misconduct" and...
I was not impressed by Dr Geggie’s article offering a survey of the attitudes of newly appointed consultants towards research fraud (J. Med. Ethics 2001; 27:344-346). Indeed, by mixing up categories of misconduct from what is at most “bad behaviour” to the very serious, he is not entirely beyond reproach himself. I remind readers that Dr Geggie suggested that 55.7% of the respondents had observed (from the tit...