Office of Research Integrity Proposes Faculty Mentoring Survey |
The Office of Research Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services, is proposing to survey a random sample of 10,000 National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation grant recipients who have supervised doctoral students in the past 5 years and are faculty members in medical schools and universities to collect descriptive data about their roles as advisors and mentors. According to an abstract from the Office of Research Integrity, the impetus for the proposed study is two reports from the Institute of Medicine stating that mentoring is a key factor in promoting the development of responsible researchers. An Agency Information Collection Request was published in the Federal Register on December 12, 2007, requesting 60-day public comment.
Findings from a survey published in the June 9, 2005, issue of Nature indicated that of the 3,247 early- and mid-career scientists who responded, 27.5 % said they had kept inadequate records related to their research project; 15.3% said they had dropped observations or data points from analyses; 13.5 said they had used inadequate or inappropriate research designs; 12.5% indicated they had overlooked others' use of flawed data; and 10% said they had inappropriately assigned authorship credit. The table below shows in rank order the percentage of scientists who reported that they had engaged in each behavior within the previous 3 years.
| Rank | Behavior |
% |
| 1 | Inadequate record keeping related to research projects | 27.5 |
| 2 | Changing the design, methodology, or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source | 15.5 |
| 3 | Dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate | 15.3 |
| 4 | Using inadequate or inappropriate research designs | 13.5 |
| 5 | Overlooking others’ use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data | 12.5 |
| 6 | Withholding details of methodology or results in papers or proposals | 10.8 |
| 7 | Inappropriately assigning authorship credit | 10.0 |
| 8 | Circumventing certain minor aspects of human subject requirements | 7.6 |
| 9 | Failing to present data that contradict one’s own previous research | 6.0 |
| 10 | Publishing the same data or results in two or more publications | 4.7 |
| 11 | Unauthorized use of confidential information in connection with one’s own previous research | 1.7 |
| 12 | Using another’s ideas without permission or giving due credit | 1.4 |
| 13 | Relationships with students, subjects, or clients that may be interpreted as questionable | 1.4 |
| 14 | Falsifying data | .3 |
| 15 | Ignoring major aspects of human subject requirements | .3 |
| 16 | Not properly disclosing involvement in firms whose products are based one’s own research | .3 |
Source: Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737-738.