Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25256408›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2015

Standards of Scientific Conduct: Disciplinary Differences.

Michael Kalichman, Monica Sweet, Dena Plemmons

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A randomized trial of a lab-embedded discourse intervention to improve research ethics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Michael KalichmanResearch Ethics Program, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive #0612, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0612, USA. mkalichman@ucsd.edu.
Monica SweetDepartment of Psychology and CREATE, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive #0036, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0036, USA. msweet@ucsd.edu.
Dena PlemmonsDepartment of Anthropology and Research Ethics Program, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive #0612, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0612, USA. dplemmons@ucsd.edu.

Funding

UC San Diego Clinical and Translational Research InstituteUL1TR001442 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI FIRESTEIN, GARY S, HOGARTH, MICHAEL · 2015 to 2024
$88.3M
San Diego Clinical and Translational Research InstituteUL1TR000100 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI FIRESTEIN, GARY S · 2012 to 2015
$19.7M
SAN DIEGO CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTEUL1RR031980 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI FIRESTEIN, GARY S · 2010 to 2011
$14.0M
Standards of Scientific ConductR01NR009962 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI KALICHMAN, MICHAEL W · 2007 to 2008
$475k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000100NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR000100NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001442NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR031980NCRR NIH HHS UL1RR031980NINR NIH HHS NR009962NINR NIH HHS R01 NR009962
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Teaching of responsible conduct of research is largely predicated on the assumption that there are accepted standards of conduct that can be taught. However there is little evidence of consensus in the scientific community about such standards, at least for the practices of authorship, collaboration, and data management. To assess whether such differences in standards are based on disciplinary differences, a survey, described previously, addressing standards, practices, and perceptions about teaching and learning was distributed in November 2010 to US faculty from 50 graduate programs for the biomedical disciplines of microbiology, neuroscience, nursing, and psychology. Despite evidence of statistically significant differences across the four disciplines, actual differences were quite small. Stricter measures of effect size indicated practically significant disciplinary differences for fewer than 10% of the questions. This suggests that the variation in individual standards of practice within each discipline is at least as great as variation due to differences among disciplines. Therefore, the need for discipline-specific training may not be as important as sometimes thought.

Indexed as

ConsensusAuthorshipBiomedical ResearchCooperative BehaviorEthics, ResearchHumansMicrobiologyNeurosciencesNursing ResearchPsychologySurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesAuthorshipCollaborationData managementResearch ethicsResponsible conduct of researchStandards

Identifiers

PMID25256408
PMCPMC4375091

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.