Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42174320›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2026

Graduate Students Find Content of Responsible Conduct of Research Coursework Useful.

Michael D Schaller, Peter H Mathers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Michael D SchallerDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA. mschaller@hsc.wvu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3945-5208
Peter H MathersDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1047-2960

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Concerns about the integrity of scientific research and the erosion of public trust in science led to policy recommendations to improve the responsible conduct of research (RCR). One recommendation was to increase scientific integrity through training, and numerous funding agencies mandated training in RCR for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Many institutions implemented training on consensus recommended topics. While many reports describe RCR training and demonstrate the effectiveness at the end of training, they do not report on its usefulness to the trainees in the real world. This study was initiated to address this gap and evaluate graduate student perceptions of the utility of coursework in RCR during their subsequent dissertation research. The study consisted of two cross-sectional survey studies conducted at a mid-sized university in the United States. The first captured the responses of first-year doctoral students enrolled in a semester-long course in RCR (n = 83 respondents). The second captured the responses of past participants in the course (n = 74 respondents). The results demonstrate that students enrolled in the course gain knowledge and self-efficacy from the course. Past participants in the course identified lessons learned from the course that helped them navigate or avoid ethical challenges in their research. The results demonstrate that students appreciate the value of training in research integrity and that they are applying concepts from their coursework very early in their careers.

Indexed as

CurriculumEducation, GraduateEthics, ResearchResearchStudentsAcademiaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSelf EfficacySurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesUniversitiesEducationEvaluationGraduate studentsQuestionnairesResearch ethicsResponsible conduct of researchSurveysTraining

Identifiers

PMID42174320
PMCPMC13500426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.