ArticleScience and engineering ethics2018
Development and Preliminary Validation of a New Measure of Values in Scientific Work.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Seeking help as a strategy for ethical and professional decision-making in research: Perspectives of researchers from East Asia and the United States.Accountability in research · 2025Article
- Article
- A randomized implementation trial to increase adoption of evidence-informed consent practices.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Perceived barriers to assessing understanding and appreciation of informed consent in clinical trials: A mixed-method study.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- What Explains Associations of Researchers' Nation of Origin and Scores on a Measure of Professional Decision-Making? Exploring Key Variables and Interpretation of Scores.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Understanding the Use of Optimal Formatting and Plain Language When Presenting Key Information in Clinical Trials.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHREArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this paper we describe the development and initial psychometric evaluation of a new measure, the values in scientific work (VSW). This scale assesses the level of importance that investigators attach to different VSW. It taps a broad range of intrinsic, extrinsic, and social values that motivate the work of scientists, including values specific to scientific work (e.g., truth and integrity) and more classic work values (e.g., security and prestige) in the context of science. Notably, the values represented in this scale are relevant to scientists regardless of their career stage and research focus. We administered the VSW and a measure of global values to 203 NIH-funded investigators. Exploratory factor analyses suggest the delineation of eight VSW, including autonomy, research ethics, social impact, income, collaboration, innovation and growth, conserving relationships, and job security. These VSW showed predictable and distinct associations with global values. Implications of these findings for work on research integrity and scientific misconduct are discussed.
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.