Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010 Sep;5(3):67–83. doi: 10.1525/jer.2010.5.3.67

Table 1.

Raw Distributions of Key Analytic Variables among N = 1,701 Respondents

M / % SD α
Female 35.2%
Racial or Ethnic Minority 14.5%
Years since doctorate 21.2 12.1
Field of study
  Biology 23.7%
  Chemistry 18.1%
  Allied health sciences 22.3%
  Medicine 15.7%
  Social Sciences 20.3%
Predictors
  Organizational Justice
    Department 4.62 1.53 .95
    University 3.78 1.43 .95
    IRB/IACUC 5.19 1.56 .94
    Manuscript review 5.24 1.48 .96
    Grant funding review 4.57 1.63 .96
  Procedural Injustice 4.99 0.93 .73
  Intrinsic Drive 4.28 0.91 .76
Misbehaviors
  Neglect or carelessness 60.4%
  Misappropriation 25.1%
  “Top ten” misbehaviors 23.4%
  Circumventing federal requirements 17.5%
  Misconduct (FFP) 8.0%
  Careless, inappropriate peer review 8.2%
Ideal Behaviors
  Compliance with regulations 88.9%
  Confidentiality and data integrity 73.9%
  Good authorship practice 53.3%
  Collegial agreements 23.4%