Difference between revisions of "Resource:F243f440-69e9-44f8-b95a-5e0c2009f700"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title=Mea Culpa: Scientific Misconduct | + | |Title=Mea Culpa: Scientific Misconduct - perspective of a research ethics board chair |
| − | |Is About= | + | |Is About=This is a factual case. This editorial article offers a short historic overview of scientific misconduct and outlines its various forms. Several recommendations are added to prevent the occurrence of these various forms of (unintentional) scientific misconduct. Importantly, the article stresses that research integrity is not merely concerns the research ethics boards but is important for all those involved in the scientific community.<references /> |
| − | |Important Because= | + | <br /> |
| + | <references /> | ||
| + | |Important Because=As also described in the article, the incidence of scientific misconduct seems to be increasing.<ref>Zhang, M., Grieneisen, M.L. The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media. ''Scientometrics'' '''96, '''573–587 (2013). <nowiki>https://doi-org.vu-nl.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0920-5</nowiki></ref> However, not all scientific misconduct is deliberate, but may also result from insufficient training or a lack of knowledge. The overview and recommendations described in this article may aid in the prevention of such accidental scientific misconduct. Moreover, this resource can also help to uncover more intentional forms of scientific misconduct. It is noted in the article that many cases of scientific misconduct are reported by the thoughtful readers of scientific articles. This article may assist readers and other members of the scientific community in the recognition of the various forms of scientific misconduct. Hopefully, it also convinces them of the importance of reporting these cases. | ||
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 13: | Line 15: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | |||
|Has Virtue And Value=Accountability | |Has Virtue And Value=Accountability | ||
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=REC approval | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=REC approval | ||
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine | |Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 17:33, 23 April 2021
ResourcesCases
Mea Culpa: Scientific Misconduct - perspective of a research ethics board chair
What is this about?
This is a factual case. This editorial article offers a short historic overview of scientific misconduct and outlines its various forms. Several recommendations are added to prevent the occurrence of these various forms of (unintentional) scientific misconduct. Importantly, the article stresses that research integrity is not merely concerns the research ethics boards but is important for all those involved in the scientific community.
Why is this important?
As also described in the article, the incidence of scientific misconduct seems to be increasing.[1] However, not all scientific misconduct is deliberate, but may also result from insufficient training or a lack of knowledge. The overview and recommendations described in this article may aid in the prevention of such accidental scientific misconduct. Moreover, this resource can also help to uncover more intentional forms of scientific misconduct. It is noted in the article that many cases of scientific misconduct are reported by the thoughtful readers of scientific articles. This article may assist readers and other members of the scientific community in the recognition of the various forms of scientific misconduct. Hopefully, it also convinces them of the importance of reporting these cases.
For whom is this important?
Other information
Virtues & Values
Good Practices & Misconduct
Research Area
- ↑ Zhang, M., Grieneisen, M.L. The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media. Scientometrics 96, 573–587 (2013). https://doi-org.vu-nl.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0920-5
