‘Scientific dishonesty’ implies the fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research or in reporting research results. A questionnaire was given to postgraduate students at the medical faculties in Sweden who attended a course in research ethics during the academic year 2008/2009 and 58% answered (range 29%–100%). Less than one-third of the respondents wrote that they had heard about scientific dishonesty in the previous 12 months. Pressure, concerning in what order the author should be mentioned, was reported by about 1 in 10 students. We suggest that all departments conducting research should have a written policy about acceptable research behaviour and that all doctoral students should be informed of the content of this policy. Participants in the research groups concerned should also be required to analyse published articles about scientific dishonesty and critically discuss what could be done about unethical conduct.
- Plagiarism; dishonesty; scientific research
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: a national survey
- Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings
- Supervisors' perspective on medical thesis projects and dropout rates: survey among thesis supervisors at a large German university hospital
- Scientists call for whistleblowers' charter
- Scientific dishonesty: European reflections
- Whistleblowing in academic medicine
- The White Bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism
- Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?
- Identifying bioethical issues in biostatistical consulting: findings from a US national pilot survey of biostatisticians
- Differences in medical students’ attitudes to academic misconduct and reported behaviour across the years—a questionnaire study