Margaret A.WinkerMD, Senior EditorIndividualAuthorPhil B.FontanarosaMD, Senior EditorIndividualAuthor
To the Editor.—The article by Dr Korenman
and colleagues1on research integrity provides
a useful characterization of research as acts in 4 domains. While the authors
sound optimistic that researchers and administrators agree on what research
integrity is, based on somewhat similar malfeasance ratings, such ratings
represent, at maximum for a particular act, 45.5% of the 606 scientists (Act
1-3) and 51.6% of the 91 administrators (Act 1-1) who responded. Even with
100% agreement that plagiarism (Act 2-1) is unethical, such agreement represents
only 22.6% of scientists and 28.6% of administrators who responded. I am concerned
about the effect of response bias and bothered by disparities over whether
acts of unethical behavior should even be addressed.
Jung BC. Standards for Scientific Behavior and Research Integrity. JAMA. 1998;279(14):1067–1068. doi:10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-279-14-jac80003
Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: