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.\n\nMethodIn 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.\n\nResultsIn 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 participants words (6.7%), plagiarizing (5.5%), inappropriately modifying results (5.3%), deleting data without disclosure (3.4%), and fabricating data (2.4%). Overall, 533 (90.3%) respondents reported at least one QRP.\n\nConclusionsNotwithstanding 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.\n\nO_QD\"Researchers should practice research responsibly. Unfortunately, some do not.\" -Nicholas H. Steneck, 20061\n\nC_QD