I85PREP
⌘ K
PRC study materials
PRC study resources

PRC practice questions

One question at a time. Build your PRC understanding.

First 50 of 200 questions. Each one lists the choices, the correct answer, and an explanation. The checker at the top of this page saves progress in this browser when it is available.

Continue in the practice tool above to load more questions, 50 at a time.

Question 1Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher is preparing a study involving human participants. Before any data collection begins, which action best reflects the core requirement of professional research conduct?

  1. Collecting a small pilot sample first and seeking approval only if results look promising
  2. Telling participants the study's full hypothesis so they can decide whether to take part
  3. Asking a senior colleague to verbally confirm the study is acceptable
  4. Obtaining approval from an ethics review body and informed consent from participants Correct answer.

Explanation

Professional research conduct requires independent ethics review and freely given informed consent before data collection. These safeguards protect participants and are generally mandatory regardless of the study's perceived risk or the seniority of colleagues.

Question 2Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A reviewer receives a manuscript that directly competes with the reviewer's own unpublished work. What is the most appropriate course of action?

  1. Decline to review and disclose the conflict of interest to the editor Correct answer.
  2. Review it anonymously and avoid mentioning the overlap in the report
  3. Review it carefully but use the insights to speed up the reviewer's own submission
  4. Review it and recommend rejection to protect the reviewer's competitive position

Explanation

A direct competitive overlap is a conflict of interest that compromises impartiality. The reviewer should disclose it and step aside so the editor can assign someone without a stake in the outcome.

Question 3Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

Which practice best exemplifies the principle of research integrity in data handling?

  1. Sharing data only verbally with collaborators
  2. Storing data only on a personal laptop without backups
  3. Deleting raw data once the summary tables are finalized
  4. Keeping complete, traceable records of raw data and analysis steps Correct answer.

Explanation

Integrity in data handling depends on records that allow others to verify and reproduce the analysis. Retaining raw data and documenting each processing step supports accountability and reproducibility.

Question 4Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A graduate student discovers that a figure in a published paper from their own lab contains an image that appears to have been duplicated from another panel. What should the student do first?

  1. Post the finding on social media to alert the field
  2. Quietly correct the figure in a new version without telling anyone
  3. Raise the concern with the senior author and follow the institution's misconduct-reporting procedure Correct answer.
  4. Ignore it because the paper has already been published

Explanation

Suspected image duplication is a potential research-integrity issue that should be examined through established institutional channels. Reporting internally to the responsible author and following the misconduct procedure allows a proper assessment before public action.

Question 5Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

Which author-listing practice is consistent with accepted authorship norms?

  1. Listing only those who made substantial intellectual contributions to the work Correct answer.
  2. Adding a funder's representative to guarantee continued funding
  3. Listing authors in reverse order of their contribution
  4. Listing a department head who provided no intellectual contribution as a courtesy

Explanation

Authorship should be reserved for individuals who made substantial intellectual contributions to the conception, execution, or interpretation of the work. Courtesy, funding, or administrative positions do not by themselves justify authorship.

Question 6Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher wants to reuse a paragraph from their own earlier publication in a new review article. Which approach is most consistent with professional conduct?

  1. Reuse it but cite the original and ensure the reuse complies with the publisher's copyright terms Correct answer.
  2. Paraphrase it minimally and omit any reference to the earlier paper
  3. Reuse the text verbatim without any citation because it is the researcher's own work
  4. Reuse it only if no co-authors from the earlier paper object

Explanation

Reusing one's own published text still requires attribution and respect for the original publisher's copyright terms. Self-plagiarism and copyright are distinct concerns, and both must be addressed.

Question 7Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

Which of the following describes the most appropriate way to handle a co-author who contributed to the study but cannot be reached to approve the final manuscript?

  1. Remove them from the author list without telling them
  2. Publish without their approval and list them anyway
  3. Submit the paper and add a note that the co-author is unavailable
  4. Document the attempts to contact them and follow the journal's policy on author approval Correct answer.

Explanation

Journals generally require that all authors approve the submitted version. When a co-author is unreachable, the researcher should document contact attempts and follow the journal's specific policy rather than act unilaterally.

Question 8Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher is asked to review a grant proposal that contains preliminary data from a close collaborator at the same institution. What is the best response?

  1. Review it because institutional proximity improves understanding of the proposal
  2. Decline the review and disclose the relationship to the program officer Correct answer.
  3. Review it and keep the preliminary data confidential from the collaborator
  4. Review it but recommend funding to avoid awkwardness with the collaborator

Explanation

A close working relationship with the applicant creates a conflict of interest that can compromise impartial evaluation. Disclosing the relationship and declining allows the program to assign an unconflicted reviewer.

Question 9Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

Which activity is generally considered a form of research misconduct rather than a questionable research practice?

  1. Fabricating data points to support a hypothesis Correct answer.
  2. Citing a competitor's relevant prior work
  3. Pre-registering a study before data collection
  4. Reporting an exploratory analysis as exploratory

Explanation

Fabrication of data is a canonical form of research misconduct, alongside falsification and plagiarism. The other listed activities are consistent with good research practice.

Question 10Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher notices that a statistical result becomes non-significant when a legitimate outlier is removed. What is the most professional response?

  1. Omit the outlier analysis from the paper to avoid confusion
  2. Keep the outlier but adjust the p-value manually to reach significance
  3. Report both analyses and explain the rationale for handling the outlier Correct answer.
  4. Remove the outlier and report only the significant result

Explanation

Transparency about analytic decisions, including outlier handling, is central to research integrity. Reporting both analyses lets readers judge the robustness of the finding rather than concealing a sensitivity.

Question 11Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

Which statement best describes the purpose of a data availability statement in a research publication?

  1. It certifies that the data contain no errors
  2. It replaces the need for an ethics approval statement
  3. It transfers ownership of the data to the journal
  4. It describes how and where others can access the underlying data Correct answer.

Explanation

A data availability statement tells readers and reviewers how to obtain or access the data supporting the findings. It supports reproducibility and transparency without transferring ownership or certifying correctness.

Question 12Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher is preparing to share a dataset that contains identifiable information about human participants. What is the most appropriate practice?

  1. Share only after de-identification and in accordance with the consent and ethics approval terms Correct answer.
  2. Share the raw data openly because transparency outweighs privacy
  3. Encrypt the file and share the password publicly
  4. Share the data only with researchers who agree not to publish

Explanation

Sharing human-subjects data requires that privacy be protected and that the terms of consent and ethics approval be honored. De-identification and adherence to approved conditions are the standard safeguards.

Question 13Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

Which of the following best characterizes plagiarism in research writing?

  1. Presenting another person's ideas or words as one's own without attribution Correct answer.
  2. Using a thesaurus to vary one's own vocabulary
  3. Quoting a source with quotation marks and a citation
  4. Citing too many sources in a literature review

Explanation

Plagiarism is the appropriation of another's ideas, words, or work without proper attribution. Proper citation and quotation are the accepted means of avoiding it.

Question 14Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A reviewer suspects that a submitted manuscript was written with the help of a large language model in a way the journal's policy prohibits. What is the appropriate action?

  1. Ignore the suspicion because detection is unreliable
  2. Accuse the authors publicly of misconduct in the review report
  3. Note the concern to the editor and follow the journal's disclosure policy Correct answer.
  4. Reject the manuscript without explanation

Explanation

Concerns about undisclosed tool use should be raised with the editor and handled according to the journal's stated policy. The reviewer's role is to flag the issue, not to adjudicate or publicize it.

Question 15Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

Which practice most directly supports reproducibility of a computational analysis?

  1. Reporting only the final figures without intermediate steps
  2. Keeping the analysis scripts on a private server
  3. Describing the analysis only in general prose
  4. Sharing the code and documenting the software environment used Correct answer.

Explanation

Reproducibility requires that others can rerun the analysis with the same inputs and environment. Sharing code and documenting software versions and dependencies makes this possible.

Question 16Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher is offered a consulting fee by a company whose product is the subject of the researcher's upcoming study. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Accept the fee but keep it in a personal account separate from the research budget
  2. Decline all future studies on the topic
  3. Disclose the financial relationship in the publication and to the relevant review bodies Correct answer.
  4. Accept the fee and omit the relationship from the publication

Explanation

Financial relationships that could influence a study must be disclosed to readers and to ethics or review bodies. Disclosure allows others to judge potential bias while permitting the research to proceed.

Question 17Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

Which of the following is the best example of responsible mentorship in a research group?

  1. Assigning trainees to tasks without explaining the underlying methods
  2. Discussing authorship expectations with trainees early in a project Correct answer.
  3. Sharing trainees' confidential data with external parties
  4. Taking first authorship on every paper produced by the group

Explanation

Clear, early discussion of authorship and contribution expectations prevents later disputes and is a hallmark of responsible mentorship. It aligns with guidance that mentors set transparent expectations.

Question 18Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher wants to test a hypothesis but runs many statistical tests and reports only those that reached significance. What is the central professional concern with this practice?

  1. It increases the risk of false positives through selective reporting Correct answer.
  2. It violates the requirement to use nonparametric tests
  3. It uses too much computational resources
  4. It reduces the sample size available for analysis

Explanation

Selectively reporting significant results from many tests inflates the chance of false positives and distorts the evidence. Transparent reporting of all planned tests and corrections for multiple comparisons addresses this concern.

Question 19Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

Which statement about research record retention is most consistent with professional standards?

  1. Records should be kept only in printed form
  2. Records should be retained for a period defined by institutional and funder policy Correct answer.
  3. Records may be discarded as soon as a paper is accepted
  4. Records should be kept only by the corresponding author's institution indefinitely

Explanation

Retention periods are set by institutional, funder, and often journal policies, and researchers should follow the applicable requirement. The purpose is to allow verification and response to queries long after publication.

Question 20Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A journal editor discovers that a published article substantially overlaps with an earlier paper by the same authors in another journal. What is the most appropriate editorial response?

  1. Investigate the extent of overlap and follow the journal's correction or retraction policy Correct answer.
  2. Delete the article silently from the website
  3. Publish an editorial praising the authors for productivity
  4. Ignore the overlap because the authors are established

Explanation

Substantial undisclosed overlap raises duplicate-publication concerns that require investigation and a documented editorial response. Journals typically handle such cases through correction or retraction procedures.

Question 21Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

Which of the following best describes the role of informed consent in research involving human participants?

  1. It is a formality that can be waived whenever the researcher prefers
  2. It is required only for studies that involve financial compensation
  3. It transfers legal liability from the researcher to the participant
  4. It ensures participants understand the study and voluntarily agree to take part Correct answer.

Explanation

Informed consent is the process by which participants learn about the study and freely agree to participate. It protects autonomy and is a foundational requirement of human-subjects research.

Question 22Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher is invited to join a paper as a co-author after the analysis is complete and the manuscript is drafted, but the researcher's only contribution would be to read and comment on the draft. What is the most appropriate response?

  1. Decline co-authorship and suggest acknowledging the review instead Correct answer.
  2. Accept, because co-authorship improves the paper's prestige
  3. Accept, but ask to be listed last
  4. Accept, because reading the draft is a form of contribution

Explanation

Authorship requires substantial intellectual contribution, not merely reviewing a finished draft. Acknowledgment is the appropriate recognition for limited input such as comments on a manuscript.

Question 23Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher finds that a colleague has been adding fictitious participants to a dataset. What is the most appropriate first step?

  1. Confront the colleague publicly at a lab meeting
  2. Delete the fictitious records and say nothing
  3. Continue the analysis using the dataset as provided
  4. Report the concern through the institution's research-integrity channels Correct answer.

Explanation

Fabrication of participants is a serious form of research misconduct that should be reported through the institution's established integrity procedures. Those channels are designed to investigate and protect all parties.

Question 24Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

Which of the following practices best reflects the principle of fair attribution in collaborative research?

  1. Documenting each contributor's role and crediting accordingly Correct answer.
  2. Crediting only the person who wrote the final manuscript
  3. Crediting contributors in proportion to their seniority
  4. Crediting everyone who attended project meetings

Explanation

Fair attribution depends on documented contributions, which allows credit to reflect actual intellectual input. This practice reduces disputes and aligns with contributor-role taxonomies used in many fields.

Question 25Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher's institution requires that all external collaborations involving data sharing be governed by a formal agreement. The researcher's collaborator asks to receive data by email without any agreement. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Send a subset of the data to reduce the risk
  2. Follow the institution's requirement and establish the agreement before sharing Correct answer.
  3. Send the data because the collaborator is trusted
  4. Send the data and formalize the agreement after the project ends

Explanation

Institutional data-sharing requirements exist to protect privacy, ownership, and legal compliance, and they apply before data leave the institution. Establishing the agreement first ensures the collaboration proceeds on an approved basis.

Question 26Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A doctoral student is listed as an author on a paper even though a senior colleague performed all the experiments and wrote the manuscript, while the student only provided general encouragement. Which authorship criterion does this arrangement most clearly violate?

  1. Willingness to help with future revisions
  2. Agreement to be accountable for the work
  3. Approval of the final version before submission
  4. Substantial contribution to conception, design, acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data Correct answer.

Explanation

Most authorship frameworks require a substantial intellectual or practical contribution to the work itself. Providing only encouragement or general supervision without involvement in design, data, or interpretation does not meet that threshold. Approval, accountability, and revision willingness are obligations of authorship, not substitutes for a real contribution.

Question 27Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A reviewer receives a manuscript that is scientifically sound but written in awkward English. The reviewer is fluent in the authors' language and can see the science clearly. What is the most appropriate reviewer response?

  1. Evaluate the scientific merit and note language issues as minor editorial suggestions Correct answer.
  2. Decline to review because the language is poor
  3. Recommend rejection solely because of the writing quality
  4. Rewrite the manuscript extensively and return it to the editor as a revision

Explanation

Peer review judges scientific validity and significance, not the elegance of the prose. Language problems should be flagged as editorial matters for the authors and journal to address. Rewriting the manuscript crosses into authorship-like contribution and undermines the reviewer's impartial role.

Question 28Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A laboratory keeps raw data files on a shared drive with no version labels, and a postdoc overwrites the original file while re-analyzing it. Which practice would most directly prevent this loss of the primary record?

  1. Emailing the raw data to co-authors for safekeeping
  2. Deleting intermediate files after each analysis session
  3. Storing only the final figures in the shared drive
  4. Writing the raw data to write-once or read-only storage and analyzing copies Correct answer.

Explanation

Primary data should be preserved in an unaltered state, with analyses performed on working copies. Read-only or write-once storage protects the original record from accidental overwriting. Emailing copies distributes uncontrolled versions and does not establish integrity.

Question 29Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A graduate student is preparing a poster and wants to include a figure adapted from another group's published paper. What is the correct first step?

  1. Ask a co-author to approve the reuse informally
  2. Redraw the figure slightly and present it as original
  3. Use the figure without attribution because posters are not formally published
  4. Obtain permission or confirm the license permits reuse, and cite the source Correct answer.

Explanation

Reusing a published figure requires checking the copyright or license terms and, where needed, obtaining permission. Proper citation must accompany any authorized reuse. Minor redrawing does not remove the obligation to credit the original source.

Question 30Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

During a study, a researcher realizes that the consent form did not mention that samples would be stored for future research. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Use the samples but omit the storage detail from the paper
  2. Seek amended approval and, where required, additional consent before future use Correct answer.
  3. Discard the samples immediately without notifying anyone
  4. Proceed because the samples are already collected

Explanation

Changes to the scope of consent require review by the ethics board and, where appropriate, renewed participant consent. Proceeding on outdated consent undermines participant autonomy. Simply discarding samples may be unnecessary if proper approval can be obtained.

Question 31Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher is a paid member of a company's scientific advisory board and is invited to write an independent commentary about that company's product. Which disclosure is most appropriate?

  1. Disclose the advisory role and payment in the commentary Correct answer.
  2. Disclose the role only in a private note to the editor
  3. No disclosure is needed because the commentary reflects the researcher's own opinion
  4. Mention the role only if a reader asks directly

Explanation

Financial relationships that could influence or appear to influence a commentary must be disclosed to readers. Transparency allows the audience to judge potential bias. Private disclosure to the editor alone does not serve the reader.

Question 32Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

Which record-keeping practice best supports a later investigation into an allegation of data fabrication?

  1. Relying on memory to reconstruct the analysis if challenged
  2. Storing files on a personal device without backup
  3. Retaining raw data, metadata, and analysis scripts with dates and version history Correct answer.
  4. Keeping only summarized results in a spreadsheet

Explanation

Investigations depend on the ability to reconstruct what was done from primary records. Raw data, metadata, and versioned scripts provide that audit trail. Summaries alone cannot reveal whether the underlying data support the reported results.

Question 33Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher lists a colleague as a co-author without the colleague's knowledge. What is the primary professional problem with this action?

  1. It reduces the number of available reviewers
  2. It violates the requirement that all authors consent to authorship Correct answer.
  3. It increases the paper's citation count inappropriately
  4. It slows down the submission process

Explanation

Authorship requires the informed agreement of every named author, who must also approve the submitted version. Naming someone without consent misrepresents their involvement and denies them the chance to verify the work. The other listed consequences are not the core ethical issue.

Question 34Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A reviewer is sent a manuscript by an author who is a direct competitor working on the same problem. The reviewer believes they can be fair but worries about subconscious bias. What is the best course of action?

  1. Accept the review but delay returning comments until their own paper is accepted
  2. Decline the review and inform the editor of the competitive relationship Correct answer.
  3. Review the manuscript but avoid reading the methods section closely
  4. Review it and use the insights to accelerate their own competing work

Explanation

A direct competitive relationship is a legitimate reason to decline review because it risks bias and misuse of confidential information. Informing the editor allows the manuscript to be reassigned promptly. Reviewers should not exploit privileged material for their own benefit.

Question 35Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A study reports a strong effect, but the authors also ran several alternative model specifications that produced weaker results. Which practice is most consistent with transparent reporting?

  1. Report the weaker results and suppress the primary analysis
  2. Report the primary analysis and disclose the sensitivity analyses Correct answer.
  3. Report only the specification that produced the strongest effect
  4. Omit any mention that alternative models were tested

Explanation

Transparent reporting presents the prespecified or primary analysis alongside sensitivity analyses that test robustness. Disclosing alternative specifications lets readers judge how dependent the conclusion is on analytic choices. Selectively reporting only favorable models distorts the evidence.

Question 36Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher is invited to join a consortium paper but has contributed only funding and lab space, with no involvement in design, analysis, or writing. Under common authorship guidelines, what is the most appropriate recognition?

  1. Acknowledge the contribution in the funding or acknowledgments section Correct answer.
  2. List as corresponding author to represent the institution
  3. List as first author because the lab hosted the work
  4. List as a co-author because funding is essential to research

Explanation

Providing funding or facilities alone does not meet typical authorship criteria, which require substantive intellectual contribution. Such support is properly recognized in the acknowledgments or funding statement. Authorship positions should reflect actual involvement, not resources supplied.

Question 37Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher wants to make a statistical analysis reproducible by others. Which combination of practices best supports that goal?

  1. Describing the analysis in enough detail that any expert could re-derive the code
  2. Sharing the final results table and a verbal description of the method
  3. Publishing only the p-values for the main outcomes
  4. Depositing the analysis code with documented software versions and a synthetic or de-identified dataset Correct answer.

Explanation

Reproducibility requires access to the code and data or a suitable substitute, along with documentation of the computational environment. Software versions matter because results can change across releases. Narrative descriptions alone rarely allow exact reproduction.

Question 38Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A senior researcher learns that a junior colleague's paper contains an error that undermines a key conclusion. The senior researcher is not an author. What is the most appropriate response?

  1. Contact the journal directly to demand retraction without informing the authors
  2. Post the error on social media to prompt a rapid response
  3. Notify the authors privately with specific evidence so they can investigate and correct the record Correct answer.
  4. Ignore the issue because the senior researcher is not an author

Explanation

The professional first step is to raise concerns privately with the authors, providing concrete evidence so they can assess and correct the record. Direct escalation or public posting bypasses the chance for correction and can unfairly damage reputations. Remaining silent leaves a known error uncorrected.

Question 39Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher is asked to review a manuscript and recognizes that the work closely resembles an unpublished idea from a grant application they reviewed last year. What should the reviewer do?

  1. Disclose the prior exposure to the editor and follow guidance on whether to proceed Correct answer.
  2. Use the resemblance to accuse the authors of theft in the review
  3. Review the manuscript but mention the earlier idea to their own students
  4. Accept the review and reject the paper to protect the original applicants

Explanation

Prior exposure to related confidential material creates a potential conflict that the editor should assess. Disclosing it allows the editor to decide whether the reviewer can act impartially. Reviewers must not leverage confidential information from other roles.

Question 40Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher's dataset includes participants' dates of birth, full postcodes, and free-text medical notes. Before depositing it in a public repository, what is the most appropriate approach?

  1. Remove direct identifiers and assess residual re-identification risk before sharing Correct answer.
  2. Deposit the data unchanged because the repository is access-controlled
  3. Replace names with initials and deposit the rest unchanged
  4. Share the data only with researchers who promise not to misuse it

Explanation

De-identification requires removing direct identifiers and evaluating whether combinations of remaining variables could still identify individuals. Free-text notes and precise dates are common sources of residual risk. A controlled repository reduces but does not eliminate the need for this assessment.

Question 41Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

Two labs independently reach opposite conclusions using the same public dataset. A reviewer is asked to assess a paper from one lab. Which approach best reflects sound methodological judgment?

  1. Evaluate whether the analytic choices and assumptions are defensible and clearly reported Correct answer.
  2. Reject the paper because the field is clearly unsettled
  3. Require the authors to cite and agree with the opposing paper
  4. Assume the paper is wrong because another lab reached a different conclusion

Explanation

Divergent conclusions from shared data usually reflect different assumptions, model choices, or outcome definitions. The reviewer's task is to judge whether those choices are justified and transparent. Agreement with another paper is not a validity criterion.

Question 42Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher discovers that a figure in their own published paper contains an accidental duplication of an image panel. What is the most appropriate course of action?

  1. Withdraw the entire paper from consideration by all future readers
  2. Wait to see whether readers notice before acting
  3. Replace the figure on a personal website without informing the journal
  4. Contact the journal to request a correction with an explanation and the corrected figure Correct answer.

Explanation

Honest correction is the appropriate response to an identified error in the published record. The journal can issue a correction that preserves the integrity of the literature. Silence or informal fixes leave the record inaccurate.

Question 43Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A mentor assigns a first-year student to a project but provides no training in the lab's data management standards. The student later loses track of which files are raw data. Which mentor responsibility was most clearly unmet?

  1. Negotiating the student's stipend
  2. Ensuring the trainee understands expected research practices and standards Correct answer.
  3. Arranging conference travel for the student
  4. Securing the student's authorship on future papers

Explanation

Mentors are responsible for training trainees in the standards of responsible research conduct, including data management. Clear expectations and instruction prevent avoidable errors. Authorship, travel, and stipend matters are separate from this training duty.

Question 44Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

An author is asked by a journal to provide a data availability statement but the data cannot be shared because of participant confidentiality. What is the most appropriate response?

  1. State that data are available on request while knowing they cannot be shared
  2. Omit the statement entirely to avoid drawing attention
  3. Explain the restriction, describe the access conditions, and point to any available summary or synthetic data Correct answer.
  4. Claim the data were lost

Explanation

A data availability statement should accurately describe why data are restricted and how qualified researchers might gain access. Pointing to aggregate or synthetic data increases transparency where full sharing is impossible. Misleading or false statements undermine trust.

Question 45Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher is invited to give a talk funded by an industry sponsor. The sponsor asks to review the slides in advance and suggest changes to conclusions it dislikes. What is the most appropriate response?

  1. Agree to soften conclusions only in the oral presentation
  2. Allow the sponsor to remove the entire results section
  3. Decline editorial control over scientific conclusions while allowing factual corrections Correct answer.
  4. Accept the edits to preserve the funding relationship

Explanation

Sponsors may check factual accuracy but must not control scientific conclusions or suppress findings. Maintaining independence protects the integrity of the presentation and the researcher's credibility. Conceding editorial control over conclusions creates a serious conflict.

Question 46Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A journal receives a submission reporting a trial that was registered, but the registered primary outcome differs from the one reported as primary in the manuscript. What is the most appropriate editorial response?

  1. Allow the authors to quietly re-register the outcome
  2. Ignore the discrepancy because the trial was registered
  3. Ask the authors to explain the change and report both outcomes with clear labeling Correct answer.
  4. Reject the paper without further inquiry

Explanation

Discrepancies between registration and publication can indicate outcome switching, which biases reported results. The editor should seek an explanation and require transparent reporting of both the registered and reported outcomes. Silent re-registration would erase the audit trail.

Question 47Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A doctoral candidate's supervisor insists on being added as co-author to every paper from the lab, including one based entirely on the candidate's independent analysis with no supervisor input. Which principle is most directly at stake?

  1. The journal's preference for senior authors
  2. The requirement that authorship reflect genuine contribution Correct answer.
  3. The supervisor's right to institutional credit
  4. The candidate's obligation to share data

Explanation

Authorship must reflect substantive contribution, and supervisory position or lab membership alone does not qualify. Honorary or gift authorship dilutes credit and misrepresents responsibility. Institutional status and journal preferences do not override this principle.

Question 48Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher finds that a co-author's published paper cites a retracted article as support for a key claim. The co-author is unaware of the retraction. What is the most appropriate action?

  1. Remove the citation from the co-author's file copy without telling anyone
  2. Inform the co-author and suggest issuing a correction that addresses the retracted citation Correct answer.
  3. Publicly accuse the co-author of misconduct
  4. Do nothing because the paper was peer reviewed

Explanation

Citing a retracted study as valid support can propagate unsupported claims and warrants correction. The appropriate step is to alert the author so the record can be amended through the journal. Public accusations and silent edits do not properly correct the literature.

Question 49Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A researcher is designing a study and considers excluding participants whose results are likely to be outliers based on seeing the outcome data. Which approach best preserves scientific integrity?

  1. Decide exclusions case by case after the analysis
  2. Prespecify exclusion criteria based on data-independent rationale and report all exclusions Correct answer.
  3. Exclude outliers after seeing results to strengthen significance
  4. Exclude participants whose results contradict the hypothesis

Explanation

Exclusion criteria should be defined before analysis on grounds unrelated to the observed outcomes. Post hoc removal of inconvenient data inflates false positives and biases estimates. Reporting all exclusions maintains transparency about their impact.

Question 50Professional Research Conduct (unverified - source page unavailable)

A reviewer receives two manuscripts from different groups describing nearly identical findings and suspects one group saw the other's confidential submission. What is the most appropriate action for the reviewer?

  1. Discuss the suspicion with colleagues outside the review process
  2. Confront the suspected authors directly by email
  3. Inform the editor of the concern and provide the specific observations that raised it Correct answer.
  4. Reject both papers to be safe

Explanation

Suspicions of confidentiality breaches should be reported to the editor, who has the authority and context to investigate. Providing specific observations helps the editor assess the concern. Direct confrontation or discussion outside the process risks harm and further confidentiality loss.