Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 137Academic integrity and plagiarismHealth and Medical Research ImpactsEthics in Business and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A pilot study of biomedical traineesʼ perceptions concerning research ethics

Kalichman, M W, Friedman, P J·1992·Academic Medicine

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

Crossref · 10.1097/00001888-199211000-00015

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Kalichman, M. W., & Friedman, P. J.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
Academic Medicine
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

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.