Scholarlink

<p>This study aimed to explore the gap between attitudes towards and personally observed breaches of research integrity among medical postgraduates in China, a critical yet understudied population. We conducted an online, cross-sectional survey among postgraduates at three Chinese medical schools. A self-administered questionnaire was used to evaluate their attitudes toward research integrity breaches and their perceptions of such behaviors among peers. Among 983 respondents (719 master’s, 264 doctoral), a strong majority condemned serious research misconduct. Only 0.93% expressed acceptance for falsifying images to reverse results, and 1.53% for manipulating data to achieve significance. However, peer-reports revealed a higher prevalence of observed misconduct, with 18.41% indicating knowledge of data fabrication among peers. In conclusion, while Chinese medical postgraduates largely condemn serious research misconduct, the peer-reported occurrence of such behaviors indicates that ethical awareness has not been fully translated into practice. These findings highlight the need for bolstered educational initiatives and suggest that the peer-report method can be a key tool for educators to assess and address integrity issues within their institutions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A multicenter cross-sectional study on perceptions and peer-reported prevalence of research misconduct among Chinese medical postgraduates

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月9日

查看全文
  • Tang Haitao,
  • Zhou Jingya,
  • Wang Jinsong,
  • Zeng Wen

摘要

This study aimed to explore the gap between attitudes towards and personally observed breaches of research integrity among medical postgraduates in China, a critical yet understudied population. We conducted an online, cross-sectional survey among postgraduates at three Chinese medical schools. A self-administered questionnaire was used to evaluate their attitudes toward research integrity breaches and their perceptions of such behaviors among peers. Among 983 respondents (719 master’s, 264 doctoral), a strong majority condemned serious research misconduct. Only 0.93% expressed acceptance for falsifying images to reverse results, and 1.53% for manipulating data to achieve significance. However, peer-reports revealed a higher prevalence of observed misconduct, with 18.41% indicating knowledge of data fabrication among peers. In conclusion, while Chinese medical postgraduates largely condemn serious research misconduct, the peer-reported occurrence of such behaviors indicates that ethical awareness has not been fully translated into practice. These findings highlight the need for bolstered educational initiatives and suggest that the peer-report method can be a key tool for educators to assess and address integrity issues within their institutions.