Margaret A.WinkerMD, Senior EditorIndividualAuthorPhil B.FontanarosaMD, Senior EditorIndividualAuthor
In Reply.—Ms Jung questions whether our
findings demonstrated agreement between scientists and institutional representatives
concerning the ethical level of research behaviors but apparently misunderstands
the methods and findings of our study. According to the fractional factorial
design we used, participants responded to surveys of 12 scenarios that were
constructed from randomly chosen phrases consisting of factors hypothesized
to be related to whether an act would be judged unethical; this approach resulted
in 8364 different possibilities. Thus, no 2 study subjects received the same
survey instrument, and each act was considered by only a sample of the respondents.
Since the respondents to each question were a random sample of scientists
and institutional representatives, the responses could be extrapolated to
the populations as a whole. Furthermore, punishments were solicited only from
those who considered an act to be unethical. For example, Act 1-1, "fabricates
data from scratch," was responded to by 235 scientists and 47 institutional
representatives, as noted in Table 1 of our article. All institutional representatives
and 99% of scientists felt that this behavior was unethical, with a rating
of 9.8 on a 10-point scale. All respondents who considered the act unethical
felt that it merited punishment. For this act, consensus was apparently reached.
Korenman SG, Berk R, Wenger NS, Lew V. Standards for Scientific Behavior and Research Integrity—Reply. 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: