scholarly journals Philosophy of Scientific Malpractice

SATS ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanne Andersen
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Current Work ◽  
Responsible Conduct Of Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Responsible Conduct

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.

scholarly journals Research ethics – from ethos to regulations

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 15-21
Author(s):  
Alicja Przyłuska-Fiszer
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Responsible Conduct Of Research ◽  
Responsible Conduct

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

scholarly journals Research practices and assessment of research misconduct

2016 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris H.J. Hartgerink ◽  
Jelte M. Wicherts
Keyword(s):  
White Collar Crime ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Professional Standards ◽  
Responsible Conduct Of Research ◽  
List Type ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Responsible Conduct ◽  
Legal Perspective

Abstract This article discusses the responsible conduct of research, questionable research practices, and research misconduct. Responsible conduct of research is often defined in terms of a set of abstract, normative principles, professional standards, and ethics in doing research. In order to accommodate the normative principles of scientific research, the professional standards, and a researcher’s moral principles, transparent research practices can serve as a framework for responsible conduct of research. We suggest a “prune-and-add” project structure to enhance transparency and, by extension, responsible conduct of research. Questionable research practices are defined as practices that are detrimental to the research process. The prevalence of questionable research practices remains largely unknown, and reproducibility of findings has been shown to be problematic. Questionable practices are discouraged by transparent practices because practices that arise from them will become more apparent to scientific peers. Most effective might be preregistrations of research design, hypotheses, and analyses, which reduce particularism of results by providing an a priori research scheme. Research misconduct has been defined as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP), which is clearly the worst type of research practice. Despite it being clearly wrong, it can be approached from a scientific and legal perspective. The legal perspective sees research misconduct as a form of white-collar crime. The scientific perspective seeks to answer the following question: “Were results invalidated because of the misconduct?” We review how misconduct is typically detected, how its detection can be improved, and how prevalent it might be. Institutions could facilitate detection of data fabrication and falsification by implementing data auditing. Nonetheless, the effect of misconduct is pervasive: many retracted articles are still cited after the retraction has been issued. Main points Researchers systematically evaluate their own conduct as more responsible than colleagues, but not as responsible as they would like. Transparent practices, facilitated by the Open Science Framework, help embody scientific norms that promote responsible conduct. Questionable research practices harm the research process and work counter to the generally accepted scientific norms, but are hard to detect. Research misconduct requires active scrutiny of the research community because editors and peer-reviewers do not pay adequate attention to detecting this. Tips are given on how to improve your detection of potential problems.

scholarly journals Ethical Shades of Gray: Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony R. Artino ◽  
Erik W. Driessen ◽  
Lauren A. Maggio
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Professions Education ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices

AbstractPurposeTo maintain scientific integrity and engender public confidence, research must be conducted responsibly. Whereas scientific misconduct, like data fabrication, is clearly irresponsible and unethical, other behaviors—often referred to as questionable research practices (QRPs)—exploit the ethical shades of gray that color acceptable practice. This study aimed to measure the frequency of self-reported QRPs in a diverse, international sample of health professions education (HPE) researchers.MethodIn 2017, the authors conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional survey study. The web-based survey contained 43 QRP items that asked respondents to rate how often they had engaged in various forms of scientific misconduct. The items were adapted from two previously published surveys.ResultsIn total, 590 HPE researchers took the survey. The mean age was 46 years (SD=11.6), and the majority of participants were from the United States (26.4%), Europe (23.2%), and Canada (15.3%). The three most frequently reported QRPs were adding authors to a paper who did not qualify for authorship (60.6%), citing articles that were not read (49.5%), and selectively citing papers to please editors or reviewers (49.4%). Additionally, respondents reported misrepresenting a participant’s words (6.7%), plagiarizing (5.5%), inappropriately modifying results (5.3%), deleting data without disclosure (3.4%), and fabricating data (2.4%). Overall, 533 (90.3%) respondents reported at least one QRP.ConclusionsNotwithstanding the methodological limitations of survey research, these findings indicate that a substantial proportion of HPE researchers report a range of QRPs. In light of these results, reforms are needed to improve the credibility and integrity of the HPE research enterprise.“Researchers should practice research responsibly. Unfortunately, some do not.” –Nicholas H. Steneck, 20061

scholarly journals Ethical Consistency and Experience: An Attempt to Influence Researcher Attitudes Toward Questionable Research Practices Through Reading Prompts

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 216-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel V. Bruton ◽  
Mitch Brown ◽  
Donald F. Sacco
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Psychological Interventions ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Widespread Occurrence ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
The Past

Over the past couple of decades, the apparent widespread occurrence of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) in scientific research has been widely discussed in the research ethics literature as a source of concern. Various ways of reducing their use have been proposed and implemented, ranging from improved training and incentives for adopting best practices to systematic reforms. This article reports on the results of two studies that investigated the efficacy of simple, psychological interventions aimed at changing researcher attitudes toward QRPs. While the interventions did not significantly modify researchers’ reactions to QRPs, they showed differential efficacy depending on scientists’ experience, suggesting complexities in researcher psychology and the ethics of QRPs that merit further study.

scholarly journals Evaluating the efficacy of the education and training program of the TCPS 2

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 102-114
Author(s):  
Denise Stockley ◽  
Laura Kinderman ◽  
Rylan Egan ◽  
Chi Yan Lam ◽  
Amber Hastings
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Educational Program ◽  
Educational Opportunities ◽  
Responsible Conduct Of Research ◽  
Policy Statement ◽  
Evaluation Team ◽  
The Core ◽  
Responsible Conduct ◽  
And Training ◽  
Canadian Research

In 2011, the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research launched a set of educational opportunities to facilitate and enhance the dissemination of TCPS 2, the 2nd edition of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (2010), which guides Canadian research ethics. Three educational modalities were implemented to aid participants in developing or refining their ethical understanding and practice: (i) Regional Workshops, which brought together diverse disciplinary perspectives; (ii) the CORE tutorial, which enabled individuals to discover the various aspects and applications of the Policy; and (iii) Webinars, which provided participants with the opportunity to explore deeper dimensions of research ethics. This article reports on the findings of a national program evaluation team which measured the effectiveness of the educational program and provided recommendations for future opportunities.

scholarly journals Clinical translational students' perceptions of research ethics coursework: a case study

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda S. Behar-Horenstein ◽  
Huibin Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Scientific Misconduct ◽  
Responsible Conduct Of Research ◽  
Ethical Practices ◽  
Course Content ◽  
Course Syllabi ◽  
Portfolio Development ◽  
Semistructured Interviews

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document