ArticleBMC medical ethics2013
Scientific dishonesty--a nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Pooled it
- Indirect measurement of research misconduct among Iranian postgraduate students of medical sciences using the unmatched count technique.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Favorable research environment is a key determinant of research integrity according to a ten-country survey across Central and Eastern Europe.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessing Questionable and Responsible Research Practices in Psychology Master's Theses.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The "Why" in Mental Health, Stigma, and Addictive Behaviors: Causal Inferences in Applied Settings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Does the Farsi version of attitude toward plagiarism questionnaire have acceptable psychometric properties?Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2022Article
- Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- The Use of Questionable Research Practices to Survive in Academia Examined With Expert Elicitation, Prior-Data Conflicts, Bayes Factors for Replication Effects, and the Bayes Truth Serum.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Research Integrity Among PhD Students at the Faculty of Medicine: A Comparison of Three Scandinavian Universities.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2020Article
- Medical professionalism videos on YouTube: Content exploration and appraisal of user engagement.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2020Article
- Perceptions of Ethical Climate and Research Pressures in Different Faculties of a University: Cross-Sectional Study at the University of Split, Croatia.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Attitude of Indian dental professionals toward scientific publications: A questionnaire based study.Journal of natural science, biology, and medicine · 2015Article
- Predicting self-reported research misconduct and questionable research practices in university students using an augmented Theory of Planned Behavior.Frontiers in psychology · 2015Article
- Article
- Authorship: attitudes and practice among Norwegian researchers.BMC medical ethics · 2014Article
- Misconduct in research: a descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country.BMC medical ethics · 2014Article
- Research Integrity Attitudes and Behaviors are Difficult to alter: Results from a ten Year Follow-up Study in Norway.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHREArticle
- Misconduct in Biomedical Research: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryReview
- Standing out with Professionalism: How do Students and Faculty of two different Medical Schools perceive it?Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe knowledge of scientific dishonesty is scarce and heterogeneous. Therefore this study investigates the experiences with and the attitudes towards various forms of scientific dishonesty among PhD-students at the medical faculties of all Norwegian universities.
methodAnonymous questionnaire distributed to all post graduate students attending introductory PhD-courses at all medical faculties in Norway in 2010/2011. Descriptive statistics.
results189 of 262 questionnaires were returned (72.1%). 65% of the respondents had not, during the last year, heard or read about researchers who committed scientific dishonesty. One respondent had experienced pressure to fabricate and to falsify data, and one had experienced pressure to plagiarize data. On average 60% of the respondents were uncertain whether their department had a written policy concerning scientific conduct. About 11% of the respondents had experienced unethical pressure concerning the order of authors during the last 12 months. 10% did not find it inappropriate to report experimental data without having conducted the experiment and 38% did not find it inappropriate to try a variety of different methods of analysis to find a statistically significant result. 13% agreed that it is acceptable to selectively omit contradictory results to expedite publication and 10% found it acceptable to falsify or fabricate data to expedite publication, if they were confident of their findings. 79% agreed that they would be willing to report misconduct to a responsible official.
conclusionAlthough there is less scientific dishonesty reported in Norway than in other countries, dishonesty is not unknown to doctoral students. Some forms of scientific misconduct are considered to be acceptable by a significant minority. There was little awareness of relevant policies for scientific conduct, but a high level of willingness to report misconduct.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.