Research coordinators' experiences with scientific misconduct and research integrity

Barbara Habermann, Marion Broome, Erica R. Pryor, Kim Wagler Ziner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)51-57
Number of pages7
JournalNursing Research
Volume59
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2010

Fingerprint

Scientific Misconduct
Research
Plagiarism
Research Personnel
Conflict of Interest
Climate
Cross-Sectional Studies
Nurses

Keywords

  • Institutional climate
  • Research coordinators
  • Scientific misconduct

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Research coordinators' experiences with scientific misconduct and research integrity. / Habermann, Barbara; Broome, Marion; Pryor, Erica R.; Ziner, Kim Wagler.

In: Nursing Research, Vol. 59, No. 1, 01.2010, p. 51-57.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Habermann, Barbara ; Broome, Marion ; Pryor, Erica R. ; Ziner, Kim Wagler. / Research coordinators' experiences with scientific misconduct and research integrity. In: Nursing Research. 2010 ; Vol. 59, No. 1. pp. 51-57.
@article{f7c7711acdca45e8bfac240cc0286f58,
title = "Research coordinators' experiences with scientific misconduct and research integrity",
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.",
keywords = "Institutional climate, Research coordinators, Scientific misconduct",
author = "Barbara Habermann and Marion Broome and Pryor, {Erica R.} and Ziner, {Kim Wagler}",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181c3b9f2",
language = "English",
volume = "59",
pages = "51--57",
journal = "Nursing Research",
issn = "0029-6562",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Research coordinators' experiences with scientific misconduct and research integrity

AU - Habermann, Barbara

AU - Broome, Marion

AU - Pryor, Erica R.

AU - Ziner, Kim Wagler

PY - 2010/1

Y1 - 2010/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Institutional climate

KW - Research coordinators

KW - Scientific misconduct

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=73549106550&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=73549106550&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181c3b9f2

DO - 10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181c3b9f2

M3 - Article

VL - 59

SP - 51

EP - 57

JO - Nursing Research

JF - Nursing Research

SN - 0029-6562

IS - 1

ER -