This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Wenger, N. S. Articles by Liu, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wenger, N. S. Articles by Liu, H. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Reporting Unethical Research Behavior

University of California, Los Angeles

Stanley G. Korenman

University of California, Los Angeles

Richard Berk

University of California, Los Angeles

Honghu Liu

University of California, Los Angeles

Scientists, as professionals, have a responsibility to self-regulate. However, whistleblowing is rare. We investigated scientists' infrequent disclosure of unethical behavior by studying their responses to scenarios describing unethical research acts and compared their responses to those of research administrators. A cross-sectional survey was administered to National Science Foundation–funded principal investigators and their institutions' representatives (IRs) to the Office of Research Integrity. Both scientists and IRs proposed to respond to nearly all research behaviors that they rated as unethical. Scientists more often proposed responses limited to the research team (58% vs. 25% of cases, p < .001) whereas IRs more often proposed to inform an administrator or dean, journal editor, funding agency, professional society, or reporter. The prior behavior and academic rank of the scenario protagonist were associated with responses, but consequences of the unethical behavior were not. Scientists appear to perceive that they uphold their responsibility to respond to unethical behavior by disclosures within the research team, whereas administrators propose to report to externally accountable individuals, raising the question of whether scientists'behavior constitutes professional self-regulation or cover up.

Evaluation Review, Vol. 23, No. 5, 553-570 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9902300504


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. R. Rothwell and J. N. Baldwin Whistle-Blowing and the Code of Silence in Police Agencies: Policy and Structural Predictors Crime Delinquency, October 1, 2007; 53(4): 605 - 632. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. R. Rothwell and J. N. Baldwin Ethical Climates and Contextual Predictors of Whistle-Blowing Review of Public Personnel Administration, September 1, 2006; 26(3): 216 - 244. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. M. Oakes Risks and Wrongs in Social Science Research: An Evaluator's Guide to the IRB Eval Rev, October 1, 2002; 26(5): 443 - 479. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Morris and L. R. Jacobs You Got a Problem With That?: Exploring Evaluators' Disagreements about Ethics Eval Rev, August 1, 2000; 24(4): 384 - 406. [Abstract] [PDF]