The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A pilot study of biomedical traineesʼ perceptions concerning research ethics
Abstract
The authors surveyed 2,010 biomedical trainees in the fall of 1990 at the University of California, San Diego, regarding their perceptions about unethical practices in research and the extent of their training exposure to the ethics of scientific investigation; 549 responded, representing both clinical and basic science departments and including graduate students and postdoctoral fellows in addition to medical students, residents, and fellows. Of the 549 trainees, 129 (23%) responded that they had received no training in research ethics; 195 (36%), that they had observed some kind of scientific misconduct (although not necessarily in the sense of research fraud defined in federal regulations); and 81 (15%), that they would be willing to select, omit, or fabricate data to win a grant or publish a paper. The trainees planning an academic career were more likely to report having been aware of others' scientific misconduct. Reported exposure to ethics training was not associated with a difference in past or potential unethical behavior. The authors conclude that while the apparent ineffectiveness of past ethics instruction does not preclude the possibility that more systematic training may be useful, it does underscore the need to assess the efficacy of training activities.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Self-report admission rates varied between 1.65% -following the removal of Kalichman and Friedman (1992) [35]- and 2.93% -following the removal of Martinson et al. (2005) [19] (Figure 5).”
From How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009) · cites this paper as [35]
Citations
Cited by
Fanelli, D. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 · Cited by 1,911
“9% said they had modified research results in the past, but 81% were “willing to select, omit or fabricate data to win a grant or publish a paper” [35].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialFostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions
Steneck, N. H. (2006) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/pl00022268 · Cited by 407
A case for a duty to feed the hungry: GM plants and the third world
Carter, L. (2007) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-006-0006-y · Cited by 265
Xie, Y., Wang, K., & Kong, Y. (2021) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9 · Cited by 205
Perspective: Research Misconduct
Kornfeld, D. S. (2012) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e318257ee6a · Cited by 102
Metadata
- Authors
- Kalichman, M. W., & Friedman, P. J.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego (US)
- ORCID
- Kalichman, M W
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1992-11
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 769-75
- ISSN
- 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2001574413
- Cited by
- 137
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 7.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
- Keywords
- research ethics training, research misconduct, scientific fraud, unethical research practices, data fabrication, medical students, postdoctoral researchers, graduate students
- MeSH terms
- California, Perception, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research, Students, Medical, Scientific Misconduct
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A pilot study of biomedical traineesʼ perceptions concerning research ethics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00001888-199211000-00015
- The paper
- Kalichman, M. W., & Friedman, P. J. (1992). A pilot study of biomedical traineesʼ perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199211000-00015
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.