The Perspective of the Students and the Faculty Members of Gonabad University of Medical Sciences Towards the Inhibitors and the Facilitators of Ethical Compliance in Research
akhlāq-i pizishkī i.e., Medical Ethics,
Vol. 18 (1403),
29 July 2024
https://doi.org/10.22037/mej.v18i-.44833
Abstract
Background and Aim: Considering that university professors are one of the main groups of researchers and as students tend to be novices in this regard, it is of particular importance to examine their perspective and compliance with ethics in research. Therefore, this study was conducted with the aim of investigating the perspectives of the students and the faculty members of Gonabad University of Medical Sciences towards the inhibitors and the facilitators of ethical compliance in research in 2019.
Methods: In this cross-sectional descriptive study, 66 faculty members and 144 students of Gonabad University of Medical Sciences were selected through census and stratified random sampling, respectively. The research tools included a demographic information form as well as the questionnaire of ethical codes and inhibitors and facilitators of ethical compliance in research. The data were analyzed through SPSS version 18, using descriptive and analytical statistics. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to investigate the compliance of the data with the normal distribution. The chi-square test was used in data analysis, with a P-value<0/05.
Ethical Considerations: In all the stages of writing the present research, while respecting the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness has been observed.
Results: Sixty-six participants (31.5%) were faculty members and 144 of them (68.5%) were students. The most important inhibitor of ethical compliance in research from the students' point of view (84%), in the stage of choosing the topic, was the researcher’s insufficient awareness of ethics in research. From the faculty members' point of view (50%), the most important inhibitor of ethical compliance in research in the stage of reviewing the existing documents was the lack of skill in reviewing the existing documents including search skills. The most important facilitator of ethical compliance in research was placing more emphasis on the issue of ethics in research while presenting the course of research methods, from the faculty members' point of view (68%) and holding educational workshops on professional and research ethics, from students' point of view (37.5%). The results regarding the agreement to use ethical codes in research from the perspectives of the students and the professors in the three stages of choosing the research topic and stating the problem, reviewing the available documents and analyzing and reporting and publishing the results of statistical differences, showed the significance levels of P<0.001, P=0.007 and P=0.01, respectively.
Conclusion: Despite the good state of ethical compliance and the appropriate performance of the ethics committee in research, there are still obstacles on the way to reaching better ethical compliance. The need to hold periodic training workshops, monitor research projects closely and provide the necessary infrastructure is felt.
- Ethics
- Research
- Inhibitors and Facilitators
- Students
- Faculty Members
- 2024-08-15 (2)
- 2024-07-29 (1)
How to Cite
References
Makkizadeh F, Mostafavi I, Hajizadeh BA. An Analysis of Medical Ethics Research In The International Arena. Medical Ethics. 2020;13(44):e18. [Persian]
Sadighi J, Nikravan Fard N, Hatami Z, Shamsi Gooshki E. The New Regulation on Establishment, Procedures, and Duties of the Research Ethics Committees in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iranian Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine. 2020;13:484-9. [Persian]
Matlabi D. Awareness of faculty members with the concepts and examples of academic misconduct; Study Case: Islamic Azad University, Yadgar Imam Khomeini Branch. Academic Librarianship and Information Research. 2022;56(4):53-68. [Persian]
Khosravan S, Mansoorian MR, Mohammadpour A, Khazaeli P, Ajam Khames Fadafen S. Ethics in researches conducted by students, related factors and solutions from the viewpoints of faculty members and students of Gonabad University of medical sciences in 2013. Nursing Education. 2016;4(4):63-71. [Persian]
Ghorbi A, Fahimifar S. aspect and Collaboration Patterns of retracted papers as evidenc of resaerch misconduct in Iran and foreign countries. Scientometrics Research Journal. 2020;6(1):149-72. [Persian]
Morovati M, Erfanmanesh M. Retraction of Scholarly Outputs and Instances of Research Misbehavior. Ethics in Science and Technology. 2021;15(4):62-9. [Persian]
Ghaderi M, Salimi M, Bolandhemmatan K. Awareness & consideration faculty members and post-graduate students to ethical standards in research. Ethics in Science and Technology. 2016;10(4):85-97. [Persian]
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. [cited 2024 Jul 1] Available from: https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf.
Baleghidamavandi S, Zameni F, Taghvaiyazdi M. Presenting a Model of Impact of Research Ethics on Research Quality of Faculty Members. Journal of Babol University of Medical Sciences. 2019;21(1):223-9.
Dehghannayeri N, Taghavi T, Harati T, Vaezi A, SHali M. Ethics in Research on Prisoners: A Systematic literature Review. Education and Ethics In Nursing. 2017;6(1,2):37-46. [Persian]
Esmaeili Abdar Z, Amirkabiri A, Haghshenas Kashani F, Rabiee Mandejin M. Investigation of Factors Affecting the Observance of Ethics in Medical Research. Alborz University Medical Journal. 2021;10(3):271-6. [Persian]
Abbasi M, Taheri M. Comparative Study of Biomedical Research Ethics Codes/ Guidelines and Recommendation. Journal of Biological Ethics. 2015;5(16):11-40. [Persian]
Ghasemzadeh N, Nikravan Fard N, Rahimi Rad MH, Mousavipour S, Faramarzi Razini F. A survey on the rate of observance of research ethics in approved proposals at Urmia University of Medical Sciences (2003-2008). Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine. 2013;6(2):67-85. [Persian]
Moghtaderi A, Dahmardeh M. Fraud and and Misconduct in Medical Research. Zahedan Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2012;14(1):1-7. [Persian]
Yazdani Damavandi S, Esmaeilzadeh Z, Davari Dolatabadi N. Survey of Compliance with Ethical Considerations in Laboratory Animal Research Projects in Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences during 2018-2021: A Short Report. Journal of Rafsanjan University of Medical Science. 2023;22(3):293-300. [Persian]
Ghanei M, Mesgarpour B, Saadat S H, Parsapour A, Bamdadi F, Mahmood Robati A, et al. Executive management of bioethics in medical researches: The results of a workshop. Iranian Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine. 2008;1(1):5-16. [Persian]
Ichendu C. Morality and ethics in research. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews. 2020;8(3):171-4.
Minaz MB. Graduate Students' Views On Scientific Research And Publication Ethics. European Journal of Education Studies. 2022;9(5):80-99.
Patel TC, Tripathi RK, Bagle TR, Rege NN. Implementation of an educational program to promote research ethics in undergraduate medical students. Perspectives in Clinical Research. 2021;12(4):216-22.
Razavi SM, Ghodusi A, Almasi F, Hosseinpour S, Janatikia M, Khodarahmi AM. Review of the Level of Human Codes Protection in Research Carried Out by Dentistry Students from 2001 to 2015 in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences Based on the Dissertations. Journal of Isfahan Dental School 2017;13(3):271-79. [Persian]
Drolet MJ, Rose-Derouin E, Leblanc JC, Ruest M, Williams-Jones B. Ethical Issues in Research: Perceptions of Researchers, Research Ethics Board Members and Research Ethics Experts. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2023;21(2):269-92.
Fanelli D. how many scientists fabricate and falsify research?a systematic review and mta-analysis of survey data. PloS one. 2009;4(5):e5738.
Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence if research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics. 2011;37(4):249-53.
- Abstract Viewed: 621 times