Ethical Shades of Gray: Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education

Abstract

PurposeTo maintain scientific integrity and engender public confidence, research must be conducted responsibly. Whereas scientific misconduct, like data fabrication, is clearly irresponsible and unethical, other behaviors-often referred to as questionable research practices (QRPs)-exploit the ethical shades of gray that color acceptable practice. This study aimed to measure the frequency of self-reported QRPs in a diverse, international sample of health professions education (HPE) researchers. MethodIn 2017, the authors conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional survey study. The web-based survey contained 43 QRP items that asked respondents to rate how often they had engaged in various forms of scientific misconduct. The items were adapted from two previously published surveys. ResultsIn total, 590 HPE researchers took the survey. The mean age was 46 years (SD=11.6), and the majority of participants were from the United States (26.4%), Europe (23.2%), and Canada (15.3%). The three most frequently reported QRPs were adding authors to a paper who did not qualify for authorship (60.6%), citing articles that were not read (49.5%), and selectively citing papers to please editors or reviewers (49.4%). Additionally, respondents reported misrepresenting a participant's words (6.7%), plagiarizing (5.5%), inappropriately modifying available for use under a CC0 license.peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/256982 doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online 3 results (5.3%), deleting data without disclosure (3.4%), and fabricating data (2.4%). Overall, 533 (90.3%) respondents reported at least one QRP. ConclusionsNotwithstanding the methodological limitations of survey research, these findings indicate that a substantial proportion of HPE researchers report a range of QRPs. In light of these results, reforms are needed to improve the credibility and integrity of the HPE research enterprise.available for use under a CC0 license.peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/256982 doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online 4 "Researchers should practice research responsibly. Unfortunately, some do not."-Nicholas H. Steneck, 2006 1 The responsible conduct of research is the foundation of sound scientific practice.1,2The need to conduct research in a responsible manner is self-evident-if science is to inform our understanding of how the world works, it must be done in an honest, accurate, and unbiased way. peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also madeThe copyright holder for this preprint (which was not . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/256982 doi: bioRxiv preprint first ...

Exploring researchers’ perspectives on authorship decision making

“…We opened the interviews with these two scenarios to provide participants with the same stimulus and starting point for considering questionable authorship practices. We selected these particular scenarios as they represent prevalent questionable authorship practices as reported in the literature . We believed the scenarios presented relatively clear and straightforward violations of authorship criteria.…”

“…Although a journal's authorship criteria may be informative in articulating expected norms, the prevalence of questionable practices suggests that such criteria are insufficient to prevent authorship abuses. From studies that report evidence of questionable authorship practices it has become clear that authorship is a complex issue that requires a multifaceted approach that extends beyond simply knowing what constitutes authorship. The variety of questionable authorship practices reflects this notion.…”

“…For example, when an individual has not satisfied the journal's criteria for a given publication, his or her inclusion as an author is a questionable authorship practice, commonly referred to as the bestowing of ‘honorary authorship’. In a recent survey of over 500 medical education researchers, 61% of respondents reported having given honorary authorship to individuals they felt did not qualify for authorship . Honorary authorship may be given to an individual for a variety of reasons, such as the belief that adding the name of a well‐known author might enhance the work's odds of being published, or as a reward for a collaborator who has contributed funding or resources to the research (so‐called ‘gift authorship’) .…”

“…In a recent survey of over 500 medical education researchers, 61% of respondents reported having given honorary authorship to individuals they felt did not qualify for authorship. 10 Honorary authorship may be given to an individual for a variety of reasons, such as the belief that adding the name of a well-known author might enhance the work's odds of being published, or as a reward for a collaborator who has contributed funding or resources to the research (so-called 'gift authorship'). 2 Hence, although the ultimate action (honorary authorship) might be the same, the rationale behind the action is likely to differ from one paper to another.…”

Ethnography in health professions education: Slowing down and thinking deeply

“…Indeed, as noted by Varpio and colleagues, ignoring the underlying assumptions and historical trajectories of certain approaches might lead to incoherence: using triangulation in a post‐positivistic way within a critical theory project, for instance . Read against our field's increasing pressures to publish and increasing respect for qualitative approaches, Varpio et al's injunction to ground methodology and methods into ontology and epistemology can be seen as a countercultural message to slow down and think deeply . It can be read as an invitation to read widely, pause and think critically about the way we conduct our research.…”