Difference between revisions of "Resource:Dd7bd3da-ee07-4642-8b4e-23e18d16fa4b"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title= | + | |Title=Sabotage and the Federal Definition of Research Misconduct |
| − | |Is About=The Office of Research Integrity found in 2011 that | + | |Is About=The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found in 2011 that a postdoctoral researcher who sabotaged a colleague’s research materials, was found guilty of misconduct<ref>Rasmussen, Lisa M. "The case of Vipul Bhrigu and the federal definition of research misconduct." ''Science and engineering ethics'' 20.2 (2014): 411-421.</ref>. This paper discusses definitions of scientific misconduct and its implications with the example of a factual case. It is discussed whether the definition of research misconduct used to assess the case may be seen as appropriate and what possible alternative definitions may be. |
| − | + | <references /> | |
| − | + | |Important Because=This article and the discussed case highlight the importance of a concise and comprehensive definition of research misconduct in order to assure a proper handling of respective accusations. The case described may be seen exemplary of the implications a definition of research misconduct may have. | |
| − | + | |Important For=Researchers; PhD students; Postdocs; Research Integrity Officers; Research integrity trainers; research integrity researchers | |
| − | |Important Because= | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
|Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-013-9459-y | |Has Link=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-013-9459-y | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Resource=Resource:7fcb92c2-8d04-4106-875f-166af054c161;Resource:Acc068ac-a0c0-48fa-b6a2-ff7448bf2573;Resource:E8743444-88e1-46a7-a1c0-25ca501c0886 | ||
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | |||
|Has Timepoint=2009 | |Has Timepoint=2009 | ||
|Has Location=USA; United States | |Has Location=USA; United States | ||
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect | |Has Virtue And Value=Respect | ||
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Sabotage | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Sabotage | ||
| − | |Related To Research Area= | + | |Related To Research Area=LS 03 - Cellular and Developmental Biology |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 09:03, 14 October 2020
ResourcesCases
Sabotage and the Federal Definition of Research Misconduct
What is this about?
The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found in 2011 that a postdoctoral researcher who sabotaged a colleague’s research materials, was found guilty of misconduct[1]. This paper discusses definitions of scientific misconduct and its implications with the example of a factual case. It is discussed whether the definition of research misconduct used to assess the case may be seen as appropriate and what possible alternative definitions may be.
- ↑ Rasmussen, Lisa M. "The case of Vipul Bhrigu and the federal definition of research misconduct." Science and engineering ethics 20.2 (2014): 411-421.
Why is this important?
This article and the discussed case highlight the importance of a concise and comprehensive definition of research misconduct in order to assure a proper handling of respective accusations. The case described may be seen exemplary of the implications a definition of research misconduct may have.
For whom is this important?
ResearchersPhD studentsPostdocsResearch Integrity OfficersResearch integrity trainersresearch integrity researchers
