Difference between revisions of "Resource:Dd7bd3da-ee07-4642-8b4e-23e18d16fa4b"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user 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 a postdoctoral researcher who sabotaged a colleague’s research materials, was 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 | + | |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 /> | <references /> | ||
| − | |Important Because= | + | |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 | + | |Important For=Researchers; PhD students; Postdocs; Research Integrity Officers; Research integrity trainers; research integrity researchers |
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Related To | {{Related To | ||
| − | |Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c | + | |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 10:03, 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.
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
Other information
When
Where
Virtues & Values
Good Practices & Misconduct
Research Area
References
- ↑ Rasmussen, Lisa M. "The case of Vipul Bhrigu and the federal definition of research misconduct." Science and engineering ethics 20.2 (2014): 411-421.
