Difference between revisions of "Resource:B2456a64-b3e1-4d36-866e-a3ba117633e9"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title=Handling of | + | |Title=Handling of Scientific Dishonesty in the Nordic Countries: Early stages in the 1990's |
| − | |Is About= | + | |Is About=This factual case analyses the similarities and differences in history, composition and functioning of committees on scientific dishonesty in medical research in the Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. For instance, the respective committees from these countries use different definitions of scientific dishonesty. Furthermore, eight cases of potential scientific misconduct that were brought to the committees are being discussed. |
| − | + | |Important Because=Scientific dishonesty and misconduct in medical research may be detrimental in various ways, e.g. it may endanger the research subject’s well-being and the public trust in science. The severity and consequences of scientific misconduct depend on the form in which it takes place. Nonetheless, research shows that there is still a substantial number of researchers that have admitted to dishonest behaviour.<ref>Martinson BC, Anderson MS, De Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005 Jun 9;435:737-8.</ref> Accordingly, prevention and punishment of both small and large instances of scientific dishonesty and misconduct are of utmost importance to ensure research integrity. The best institutions to issue these measures are independent committees that are free from personal and commercial biases. The present case may give insight into possible complications in the establishment of such committees, such as the definition of scientific misconduct. Therefore, it may aid in the formation and enhancement of systems to prevent scientific dishonesty and misconduct. | |
| − | |||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
| − | + | |Important For=researchers; research leaders; Ethics committee members; Research Ethics Committees; medical researchers; Research Integrity Officers | |
| − | |||
| − | |Important For=researchers; research leaders | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
|Has Link=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)07133-5/fulltext | |Has Link=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(98)07133-5/fulltext | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Resource=Resource:366d47ee-4b9d-4287-8c57-88ba847480bb;Resource:F68f2226-005e-4321-b2a4-fc541fdf6c8d;Resource:740210e9-b695-428b-90a3-f3af7a94a174;Resource:E8743444-88e1-46a7-a1c0-25ca501c0886 | ||
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8;Theme:047c3bec-1747-499b-b6d5-684cbfb81edd;Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:02592695-e4f8-473c-a944-adfe0d8094c0;Theme:883697c8-d319-4224-991e-ce063d648efd;Theme:13ae94da-15d6-426f-8f6e-9134fb57e267 | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| + | |Involves=Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty; Finnish National Board on Research Integrity | ||
|Has Timepoint=1992-1999 | |Has Timepoint=1992-1999 | ||
|Has Location=Norway; Finland; Sweden; Denmark | |Has Location=Norway; Finland; Sweden; Denmark | ||
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty | |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty | ||
| − | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Ghost authorship | + | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Authorship; Ghost authorship; Dishonesty |
|Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine | |Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 14:08, 5 August 2021
ResourcesCases
Handling of Scientific Dishonesty in the Nordic Countries: Early stages in the 1990's
What is this about?
This factual case analyses the similarities and differences in history, composition and functioning of committees on scientific dishonesty in medical research in the Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. For instance, the respective committees from these countries use different definitions of scientific dishonesty. Furthermore, eight cases of potential scientific misconduct that were brought to the committees are being discussed.
Why is this important?
Scientific dishonesty and misconduct in medical research may be detrimental in various ways, e.g. it may endanger the research subject’s well-being and the public trust in science. The severity and consequences of scientific misconduct depend on the form in which it takes place. Nonetheless, research shows that there is still a substantial number of researchers that have admitted to dishonest behaviour.[1] Accordingly, prevention and punishment of both small and large instances of scientific dishonesty and misconduct are of utmost importance to ensure research integrity. The best institutions to issue these measures are independent committees that are free from personal and commercial biases. The present case may give insight into possible complications in the establishment of such committees, such as the definition of scientific misconduct. Therefore, it may aid in the formation and enhancement of systems to prevent scientific dishonesty and misconduct.
- ↑ Martinson BC, Anderson MS, De Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005 Jun 9;435:737-8.
For whom is this important?
researchersresearch leadersEthics committee membersResearch Ethics Committeesmedical researchersResearch Integrity Officers
