This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor.—The article by Dr Korenman and colleagues¹ on research integrity provides a useful characterization of research as acts in 4 domains. While the authors sound optimistic that researchers and administrators agree on what research integrity is, based on somewhat similar malfeasance ratings, such ratings represent, at maximum for a particular act, 45.5% of the 606 scientists (Act 1-3) and 51.6% of the 91 administrators (Act 1-1) who responded. Even with 100% agreement that plagiarism (Act 2-1) is unethical, such agreement represents only 22.6% of scientists and 28.6% of administrators who responded. I am concerned about the effect of response bias and bothered by disparities over whether acts of unethical behavior should even be addressed.

For example, "making an honest but serious mistake in reporting research results" (Act 1-7) is considered unethical by only about a third of those responding from each group, yet punishment for this act . . . [Full Text of this Article]