scholarly journals Knowledge and attitudes of physicians toward research ethics and scientific misconduct in Lebanon

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bilal Azakir ◽  
Hassan Mobarak ◽  
Sami Al Najjar ◽  
Azza Abou El Naga ◽  
Najlaa Mashaal
2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 15-21
Author(s):  
Alicja Przyłuska-Fiszer

Abstract This paper has three aims. First, to present main principles for responsible conduct of research in the light of ethos of researchers and goals of science. Secondly, to describe the problem of scientific misconduct and strategies of preventing and dealing with it adopted by different Polish and international institutions. Thirdly, to analyze causes of growing institutionalization of research ethics


2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-82
Author(s):  
Heine Andersen

Plagiering betragtes normalt som en af dødssynderne i den akademiske verden, en form for videnskabelig uredelighed. For forskere kan plagiering have meget alvorlige karrieremæssige konsekvenser, fx tilbagekaldelse af akademiske grader og disciplinære sanktioner. I Tyskland har to ministre indenfor de senere år måttet træde tilbage efter at være blevet grebet i plagiering. Plagiering ser ud til at være et voksende problem og kontrollen er skærpet. Mange universiteter, forlag og tidskrifter har indført rutinemæssig plagiatkontrol. Efter en gennemgang af selve begrebet betydning og formelle regler i videnskabsetiske kodekser præsenteres og diskuteres forskellige etiske begrundelser for forbud mod plagiering. Tre positioner diskuteres. En naturretlig: åndelig ejendomsret, retten til viden, man selv har frembragt følger af retten til ”frugten af eget arbejde” (Locke), eller en ret, som er forudsætning for personens dannelse (Hegel). Den har svag støtte. En utilitaristisk – funktionalistisk begrundelse (Mill/ Merton): at plagiat undergraver videnskabernes anerkendelsesregime, der skal belønne efter præstation til gavn for vidensvækst. Den har stærkere støtte, om end funktionalitet kan være vanskelig at opnå og påvise i praksis. Dysfunktionalitet og perverse effekter, fx på grund af for stærkt publiceringspres, kan forekomme. Afslutningsvis inddrages Axel Honneths anerkendelsesteori op som et supplement og korrektiv til utilitarismen. ENGELSK ABSTRACT Heine Andersen: PLAGIARISM IN RESEARCH. Research ethical and sociological aspects Plagiarism is usually regarded as one of the deadly sins in science, a form of scientific misconduct. Plagiarism can have serious consequences for researcher careers, such as revocation of academic degrees and disciplinary sanctions. In recent years, two ministers in Germany had to resign after being caught in plagiarism. Plagiarism seems to be a growing problem, and many universities, publishers and scientific journals have introduced routine control for it. After a review of meaning and formal rules of ethical codes, this article discusses three ethical traditions, representing different reasons for prohibiting plagiarism. The first is natural law: a right to spiritual property, to knowledge that you yourself have generated. This is a right to “the fruit of one’s own labor” (John Locke), or that which is essential for the person’s self-realization (Hegel). There appears to be weak support for this position. The second is a utilitarian-functionalist reason (Mill/ Merton): plagiarism undermines the recognition regime in modern science, the principle of reward according to contribution to the growth of knowledge. This position has greater support, but it is often difficult to validate in practice. The strong pressure on researchers to publish may create dysfunctional and perverse effects. Finally, Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition theory is presented as a supplement and corrective to utilitarianism. Keywords: Plagiarism, scientific misconduct, research ethics.


SATS ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanne Andersen

Abstract This paper presents current work in philosophy of science in practice that focusses on practices that are detrimental to the production of scientific knowledge. The paper argues that philosophy of scientific malpractice both provides an epistemological complement to research ethics in understanding scientific misconduct and questionable research practices, and provides a new approach to how training in responsible conduct of research can be implemented.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda S. Behar-Horenstein ◽  
Huibin Zhang

Relatively unknown is whether coursework in responsible conduct of research actually achieve the purposes for which it is designed. In this study, the authors report clinical translational students’ perceptions of their research ethics coursework and the alignment between course content as recommended in the literature. We used grounded theory to portray emergent findings across focus groups and semistructured interviews among 31 participants at one clinical translational science hub. We also used thematic analysis to analyze course syllabi. Two themes emerged: Averting scientific misconduct and Responding to ethical dilemmas. Students reported that they did not acquire requisite strategies to address research ethical dilemmas. One of the course syllabi indicated the provision of active learning opportunities. However, the findings did not offer support. Developing experiential learning activities and ensuring that course content is aligned with the contemporary ethical practices, such as case study and portfolio development, is recommended.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-92
Author(s):  
Donghun Yoon

Proposed in this article is a solution and guideline for scientific misconduct prevention through a research ethics policy proposal for the effective utilization of research equipment. First, the scientific misconduct classification system for research equipment utilization is discussed and presented. Then, the results of the survey carried out targeting research equipment scientists for the analysis of the recognition of scientific misconduct in research equipment utilization are presented. For this survey, the non-probability sampling method was utilized for 60 research equipment scientists. The results of the survey conducted among research equipment scientists showed significant correlations among the variables for all the questionnaire items. This paper proposes a research ethics policy for scientific misconduct prevention and for the effective utilization of research equipment through scientific misconduct classification in relation to research equipment utilization, and based on the survey results from the research equipment scientists.


2020 ◽  
pp. 174701612096677
Author(s):  
Mera A Ababneh ◽  
Sayer I Al-Azzam ◽  
Karem Alzoubi ◽  
Abeer Rababa’h ◽  
Saddam Al Demour

In Jordan, research ethics committees exist in most health settings. However, little is known about Jordanian public views regarding the ethics of clinical research. This study aimed to evaluate Jordanian public understanding and attitudes about ethics in clinical research. A questionnaire was used to collect information that included demographics, public knowledge, and attitudes towards ethics in clinical research. It was administered via face-to-face interviews in two major cities in Jordan from 1st June to 15th August 2017. Of the 2315 respondents, 2.33% were found to have poor knowledge, 22.16% had fair knowledge, and 75.51% had good knowledge of ethics in clinical research. Furthermore, 75.81% of respondents had positive attitudes towards ethics in research. However, only 45.23% reported that they trust clinical researchers in Jordan. Even though a large majority of respondents were aware of key features of research ethics, efforts are needed to address negative perceptions and knowledge deficits.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document