Scientific Research Ethics

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 216-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel V. Bruton ◽  
Mitch Brown ◽  
Donald F. Sacco

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.


1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 199-204
Author(s):  
Deni Elliott ◽  
Patricia Blanford ◽  
Marci Watson ◽  

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 3515-3523
Author(s):  
Rana Al Smadi ◽  
◽  
Khawla Alsaida ◽  
Duha Aboud ◽  
◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 222
Author(s):  
Özcan Erkan AKGÜN ◽  
Burçin HAMUTOĞLU ◽  
Ezgi Pelin YILDIZ

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Wang ◽  
Feifei Zhang

Abstract BackgroundPostgraduate medical students’scientific research capability is an essential part for educational system, the current research on students’ research behavior mainly focused on the students’research attitude ,innovative ability and training methods and approaches. Therefore, we carried out this study to explore the evaluation index of postgraduate medical students’scientific research capacity,in order to establish a framework of postgraduate medical students’scientific evaluation.MethodsWe designed a 39-items questionnaire to explore the evaluation index of research capacity on the perspective of postgraduate students .The questionnaire consisted of items including demographics and other 34 items about index reflect one’s scientific research ability.The participants choose the number(1-5) according the importance of each items they think.1 means not important at all;2 means not important;3 means neutral;4 means important;5 means very important.ResultsThe most important indices are ”Follow three basic ethical principles: respect, benefit and justice”(4.46±0.845);”Resist behaviour such as"data fraud, submission fraud" and other academic misconduct(4.44±0.922)”;”Adhere to the principle of patient-oriented, fully informed and voluntary participation”(4.36±0.871);”The questionnaire can be divided into four parties”Research skills and output(36.046%)”,“Theoretical and practical basis(16.034%)”,”Study Attitude(14.411)”,”Ethical of research(8.371%)”.ConclusionWe should strengthen the training of scientific research ethics knowledge, ethical consciousness and scientific research ethics of postgraduate medical students;Improve the consciousness of patent granted;Enhance the research interest of clinical-oriented students and verify the scientific of the questionnaire further.


Bioethica ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Κωνσταντίνος Χαριτίδης (Constantinos Charitidis) ◽  
Ηλίας Κούμουλος (Elias Koumoulos) ◽  
Παναγιώτης Κάβουρας (Panagiotis Kavouras) ◽  
Μιχάλης Κρητικός (Michalis Kritikos) ◽  
Τίνα Γκαράνη-Παπαδάτου (Tina Garani-Papadatos)

Research integrity is an essential and integral part of scientific research ethics. It is commonly accepted that the value of scientific research vitally depends on the fulfillment of research integrity codes of conduct. The unbreakable linkage (relation) between research value and research integrity does not reflect only its attachment to the application of proper scientific method but also its acceptance from the society. In this work we present a survey on the organization of the institutions of research integrity in international, European and national level. Emphasis is given in the description of the present state in Greece in the level of Higher Educational Institutes, Research Centers and Committees. Also, we focus on the actions taken from National Technical University of Athens, as well as the initiative from EARTHnet network and their efforts for institutionalization of a common code of conduct in scientific research at a national level.


2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (02) ◽  
pp. 277-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dvora Yanow ◽  
Peregrine Schwartz-Shea

ABSTRACTThis essay corrects and updates one that was originally published inQualitative & Multi-Method Researchand, in a condensed version, in three other APSA Organized Section newsletters. Our research into IRB policy has shown that many political scientists are not familiar with some of its key provisions. The intent of the essay is to increase awareness of the existing policy’s impact on political scientific research and, in particular, on graduate students and junior faculty. We remain concerned that at present, faculty are leaving discussions of research ethics to IRBs (and their counterparts worldwide), whereas these Boards largely focus on complying with the regulatory details of governmental policy. Even though this essay seeks to clarify the latter, we remain convinced that research ethics ought to be vigorously taken up within disciplinary and departmental conversations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document