This study experimentally tests whether the techniques of neutralisation as identified in the criminal justice literature influence graduate student willingness to engage in questionable research practices (QRPs). Our results indicate that US-born graduate students are more willing to add an undeserved coauthor if the person who requests it is a faculty member in the student's department as opposed to a fellow student. Students are most likely to add an undeserving author if a faculty member is also their advisor. In addition, four techniques of neutralisation, ‘diffusion of responsibility’, ‘defence of necessity’, ‘advantageous comparison’ and ‘euphemistic labelling’, are associated with student willingness to act unethically. Participants who had received responsible conduct of research training were no less likely to commit the violation than those who had not. Knowledge of these influencing factors for QRPs will provide for opportunities to improve research ethics education strategies and materials.
- Research Ethics
- 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.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Developing a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum for professionalism and scientific integrity training for biomedical graduate students
- Managing research misconduct: is anyone getting it right?
- The fraud squad
- Most cases of research misconduct go undetected, conference told
- Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings
- Should research fraud be a crime?
- Problem-based learning for professionalism and scientific integrity training of biomedical graduate students: process evaluation
- UK must learn from US's mistakes in tackling research misconduct
- How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors
- Misconduct in research: editors respond