IntroductionIn this study, we tested a simple, active “ethical consistency” intervention aimed at reducing researchers’ endorsement of questionable research practices (QRPs).MethodsWe developed a simple, active ethical consistency intervention and tested it against a control using an established QRP survey instrument. Before responding to a survey that asked about attitudes towards each of fifteen QRPs, participants were randomly assigned to either a consistency or control 3–5-min writing task. A total of 201 participants completed the survey: 121 participants were recruited from a database of currently funded NSF/NIH scientists, and 80 participants were recruited from a pool of active researchers at a large university medical center in the southeastern US. Narrative responses to the writing prompts were coded and analyzed to assist post hoc interpretation of the quantitative data.ResultsWe hypothesized that participants in the consistency condition would find ethically ambiguous QRPs less defensible and would indicate less willingness to engage in them than participants in the control condition. The results showed that the consistency intervention had no significant effect on respondents’ reactions regarding the defensibility of the QRPs or their willingness to engage in them. Exploratory analyses considering the narrative themes of participants’ responses indicated that participants in the control condition expressed lower perceptions of QRP defensibility and willingness.ConclusionThe results did not support the main hypothesis, and the consistency intervention may have had the unwanted effect of inducing increased rationalization. These results may partially explain why RCR courses often seem to have little positive effect.

中文翻译：

---

测试积极干预以阻止研究人员使用有问题的研究实践

引言在这项研究中，我们测试了一种简单、积极的“伦理一致性”干预措施，旨在减少研究人员对可疑研究实践 (QRP) 的认可。方法我们开发了一种简单、积极的伦理一致性干预措施，并使用已建立的 QRP 调查工具对照对照对其进行了测试. 在回答一项询问对 15 个 QRP 的态度的调查之前，参与者被随机分配到一致性或控制 3-5 分钟的写作任务。共有 201 名参与者完成了调查：121 名参与者是从目前资助的 NSF/NIH 科学家的数据库中招募的，80 名参与者是从美国东南部一家大型大学医学中心的活跃研究人员库中招募的。对写作提示的叙述性反应进行编码和分析，以帮助对定量数据进行事后解释。结果我们假设，与控制条件下的参与者相比，一致性条件下的参与者会发现道德上模棱两可的 QRP 的防御性较低，并且表明参与它们的意愿较低. 结果表明，一致性干预对受访者对 QRP 的防御性或参与意愿的反应没有显着影响。考虑参与者反应的叙述主题的探索性分析表明，控制条件下的参与者对 QRP 的防御能力和意愿的感知较低。结论结果不支持主要假设，并且一致性干预可能产生了导致合理化增加的不良影响。这些结果可以部分解释为什么 RCR 课程通常似乎没有什么积极作用。