M. Gommel, H. Nolte and G. Sponholz
Team Scientific Integrity
JUnQ, 5, 2, 11–16, 2015
In 2009, a good scientific practice curriculum was developed and published on behalf of the “Ombudsman f?r die Wissenschaft”. Soon after we had started giving courses for doctoral students that follow this curriculum, we listened to many stories about scientific misconduct – related by the participants. Since these stories were far more numerous than we had expected from the published literature, we decided to ask the participants about their experience with malpractice with the help of a short explorative survey.
387 doctoral students returned our questionnaire after participating in a two-day good scientific practice course between November 2011 and December 2012. 76 students – about one in five – admitted to have been involved in one of six forms of severe scientific misconduct with consequences upon their work: plagiarism; data manipulation, fabrication or theft; honorary authorship; duplicate publication.
More than half of the respondents stated that they were involved in, or had witnessed problems with unclear data ownership or honorary authorship. In the courses, many participants told us that data management and authorship issues had never been addressed thoroughly prior to the course, although they are important aspects of the scientific process. This leads to several unsolved questions concerning the supervisors’ role in the fostering of good scientific practice, and to an assumption of “inherited unawareness” and systematic non-communication. We suggest that the issue should be tackled by educating all members of the scientific institutions, accompanied by structural changes.
The article we originally posted was missing two entries in table 3.
Find the corrected version here: [download id=”109″]
The original article can be found here: [download id=”108″]