Suchergebnisse

For more than 25 years, research misconduct (research fraud) is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP)—although other research misbehaviors have been also added in codes of conduct and legislations. A critical issue in deciding whether research misconduct should be subject to criminal law is its definition, because not all behaviors labeled as research misconduct qualifies as serious crime. But assuming that all FFP is fraud and all non-FFP not is far from obvious. In addition, new research misbehaviors have recently been described, such as prolific authorship, and fake peer review, or boosted such as duplication of images. The scientific community has been largely successful in keeping criminal law away from the cases of research misconduct. Alleged cases of research misconduct are usually looked into by committees of scientists usually from the same institution or university of the suspected offender in a process that often lacks transparency. Few countries have or plan to introduce independent bodies to address research misconduct; so for the coming years, most universities and research institutions will continue handling alleged research misconduct cases with their own procedures. A global operationalization of research misconduct with clear boundaries and clear criteria would be helpful. There is room for improvement in reaching global clarity on what research misconduct is, how allegations should be handled, and which sanctions are appropriate.

For more than 25 years, research misconduct (research fraud) is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP)—although other research misbehaviors have been also added in codes of conduct and legislations. A critical issue in deciding whether research misconduct should be subject to criminal law is its definition, because not all behaviors labeled as research misconduct qualifies as serious crime. But assuming that all FFP is fraud and all non-FFP not is far from obvious. In addition, new research misbehaviors have recently been described, such as prolific authorship, and fake peer review, or boosted such as duplication of images. The scientific community has been largely successful in keeping criminal law away from the cases of research misconduct. Alleged cases of research misconduct are usually looked into by committees of scientists usually from the same institution or university of the suspected offender in a process that often lacks transparency. Few countries have or plan to introduce independent bodies to address research misconduct; so for the coming years, most universities and research institutions will continue handling alleged research misconduct cases with their own procedures. A global operationalization of research misconduct with clear boundaries and clear criteria would be helpful. There is room for improvement in reaching global clarity on what research misconduct is, how allegations should be handled, and which sanctions are appropriate.

In 2000, the US federal government adopted a uniform definition of research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP), which became effective in 2001. Institutions must apply this definition of misconduct to federally-funded research to receive funding. While institutions are free to adopt definitions of misconduct that go beyond the federal standard, it is not known how may do. We analyzed misconduct policies from 183 US research institutions and coded them according to thirteen different types of behavior mentioned in the misconduct definition. We also obtained data on the institution's total research funding and public vs. private status, and the year it adopted the definition. We found that more than half (59%) of the institutions in our sample had misconduct policies that went beyond the federal standard. Other than FFP, the most common behaviors included in definitions were "other serious deviations" (45.4%), "significant or material violations of regulations" (23.0%), "misuse of confidential information" (15.8%), "misconduct related to misconduct" (14.8%), "unethical authorship other than plagiarism" (14.2%), "other deception involving data manipulation" (13.1%), and "misappropriation of property/theft" (10.4%). Significantly more definitions adopted in 2001 or later went beyond the federal standard than those adopted before 2001 (73.2% vs. 26.8%), and significantly more definitions adopted by institutions in the lower quartile of total research funding went beyond the federal standard than those adopted by institutions in the upper quartiles. Public vs. private status was not significantly associated with going beyond the federal standard.

ABSTRACT: This presentation consists of three parts. First, I will describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the scenes for practical academic ethics (RCR/research integrity) education in Taiwan. In this part, I will introduce the adjustments that were implemented to teaching formats (such as how do face-to-face and online courses complement each other) to comply with the government's epidemic prevention and control policies. Face-to-face teaching on RCR/research integrity and all teaching at all levels have been fully resumed in the third and fourth quarters of 2020. Therefore, I will describe the epidemic prevention measures that were conducted to secure participants'/students' health across instructional sites. Second, I will review a case of plagiarism from the master's thesis of a Taiwanese mayoral candidate. This accusation was made during the time of a mayoral by-election campaign in 2020. I will focus on the reflections on this case from an RCR/research integrity perspective, including any lessons brought to local academic research and the higher education community. These include any unsolved issues that have been actively studied in recent lessons. Examples include the following questions: what are the specific methods for establishing a quality assurance mechanism for degree theses? what are the methods for effectively detecting improper behavior, such as contract and Internet-facilitated cheating? how can the contract cheating industry and relevant advertisements be detected and then dealt with? and how can the quality and commitment of mentorship relationships be enhanced? While we do not wish to see any cases of integrity breaches in local academic settings, we are grateful to study this case because it offers the opportunity to rethink our current academic ethics education and the issues regarding the higher education system that have not previously been studied in detail. It also enables us to consider potential solutions. Finally, in the third part of my presentation, I will present a ...

This book explores the subject of research misconduct: its definition, what behaviours should fall under its label, and the types of preventive and repressive procedures that should be put to practice to combat it. Adopting a criminological perspective, Faria views research misconduct as a locus of analysis for corporate and white-collar crime. Based upon an empirical study involving in-depth interviews and documentary analysis, this original research offers an interesting approach to an age-old problem which is growing ever more important. The commodification of research - together with perceived risks of research misconduct - is opening the way to ambiguous and ineffective forms of social control over scholars, affecting their commitment to research integrity and the responsible conduct of research. Despite this, however, little consensus around the phenomenon exists. Seeking to counter this, Faria opens up the discussion on the potential social harms arising from the current state of affairs, and argues that that criminology should task itself with understanding and researching the pressing topic of research misconduct, including fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, as well as questionable research practices.

Commenting on the trend for the politically motivated forensic scrutiny of the research records of academics, Till Bruckner argues that singling out individuals in this way has a chilling effect on academic freedom and distracts from efforts to address more important systemic issues in research integrity. As somebody working to promote research integrity who has … Continued

Commenting on the trend for the politically motivated forensic scrutiny of the research records of academics, Till Bruckner argues that singling out individuals in this way has a chilling effect on academic freedom and distracts from efforts to address more important systemic issues in research integrity. As somebody working to promote research integrity who has … Continued

Research misconduct is a serious violation of a scientific community's ethical standards. Scientists who commit research misconduct typically face corrective actions from employers and funding agencies, as well as significant professional stigma. Unfortunately, there is little systematic data about the post-misconduct career of these guilty parties. Through a review of Office of Research Integrity (ORI) case summaries, I identified a pool of 284 researchers who engaged in research misconduct and were subject to ORI corrective actions. To assess the prevalence of post-misconduct research activities for these scientists, I searched publicly available databases and online resources for evidence of post-misconduct research activities (such as publications and federal research support). The data demonstrate that researchers often receive second chances as researchers, with indicators of post-misconduct research activities identified for 134 (47.18%) of the offending researchers. In addition, those researchers have received more than US$123 million in federal support for their post-misconduct research efforts.

Chapter 1: Evolution in a test tube -- Chapter 2: Scientific discoveries, real and imagined -- Chapter 3: The transformation of the university into a corporation -- Chapter 4: The institutional pressure to become a professor-entrepreneur: Chapter 5. The clash between scientific skepticism and current ethics regulations -- Chapter 6: University administration of ethics -- Chapter 7: The short path from wishful thinking to scientific fraud -- Chapter 8: Behind the façade of self-correcting science -- Chapter 9: The origin of the modern research misconduct system -- Chapter 10: Sunshine laws and the smokescreen of confidentiality -- Chapter 11: The conflict between university financial interests and research ethics -- Chapter 12: Bursting the science bubble.

Abstract
Background
Research misconduct i.e. fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism is associated with individual, institutional, national, and global factors. Researchers' perceptions of weak or non-existent institutional guidelines on the prevention and management of research misconduct can encourage these practices. Few countries in Africa have clear guidance on research misconduct. In Kenya, the capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct in academic and research institutions has not been documented. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of Kenyan research regulators on the occurrence of and institutional capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct.

Methods
Interviews with open-ended questions were conducted with 27 research regulators (chairs and secretaries of ethics committees, research directors of academic and research institutions, and national regulatory bodies). Among other questions, participants were asked: (1) How common is research misconduct in your view? (2) Does your institution have the capacity to preventresearch misconduct? (3) Does your institution have the capacity to manageresearch misconduct? Their responses were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using NVivo software. Deductive coding covered predefined themes including perceptions on occurrence, prevention detection, investigation, and management of research misconduct. Results are presented with illustrative quotes.

Results
Respondents perceived research misconduct to be very common among students developing thesis reports. Their responses suggested there was no dedicated capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct at the institutional and national levels. There were no specific national guidelines on research misconduct. At the institutional level, the only capacity/efforts mentioned were directed at reducing, detecting, and managing student plagiarism. There was no direct mention of the capacity to manage fabrication and falsification or misconduct by faculty researchers.
We recommend the development of Kenya code of conduct or research integrity guidelines that would cover misconduct.