scientific misconduct and science ethics a case study based approach

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach

Affiliation.

• 1 Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (ISIS), Faculty of Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1, 6525 ED Nijmegen, The Netherlands. [email protected]
• PMID: 16909155
• DOI: 10.1007/s11948-006-0051-6

The Schön misconduct case has been widely publicized in the media and has sparked intense discussions within and outside the scientific community about general issues of science ethics. This paper analyses the Report of the official Committee charged with the investigation in order to show that what at first seems to be a quite uncontroversial case, turns out to be an accumulation of many interesting and non-trivial questions (of both ethical and philosophical interest). In particular, the paper intends to show that daily scientific practices are structurally permeated by chronic problems; this has serious consequences for how practicing scientists assess their work in general, and scientific misconduct in particular. A philosophical approach is proposed that sees scientific method and scientific ethics as inextricably interwoven. Furthermore, the paper intends to show that the definition of co-authorship that the members of the Committee use, although perhaps clear in theory, proves highly problematic in practice and raises more questions that it answers. A final plea is made for a more self-reflecting attitude of scientists as far as the moral and methodological profile of science is concerned as a key element for improving not only their scientific achievements, but also their assessment of problematic cases.

• Education, Professional
• Ethics, Research* / education
• Nanotechnology / ethics
• Organizational Case Studies
• Peer Review, Research*
• Scientific Misconduct*
• Terminology as Topic

Europe PMC requires Javascript to function effectively.

Either your web browser doesn't support Javascript or it is currently turned off. In the latter case, please turn on Javascript support in your web browser and reload this page.

Search life-sciences literature ( 42,833,164 articles, preprints and more)

• Available from publisher site using DOI. A subscription may be required. Full text
• Citations & impact
• Similar Articles

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach.

Author information, affiliations.

• Consoli L 1

Science and Engineering Ethics , 01 Jul 2006 , 12(3): 533-541 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0051-6   PMID: 16909155 

Abstract 

Full text links .

Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0051-6

References 

Articles referenced by this article (14)

Literature on this topic is vast. For a case study of how media influence the public perception of science, see Gregory J. (2003) The popularization and excommunication of Fred Hoyle’s ‘life-from-space’ theory. Public Understanding of Science 12: 25–46. For a sociological study of the impact of technology on society and the public, an interesting perspective is offered by Ellul, J. (1967) The technological society. USA: Random House. See also Boulter D. (1999) Public perception of science and associated general issues for the scientist. Phytochemistry 50: 1–7; B.L. Cohen, B.L. (1998) Public perception versus results of scientific risk analysis. Reliability Engineering and System. Safety 59: 101–105.

Lafollette, m. (1992) stealing into print: fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing. berkeley: university of california press., drenth, p.j.d. (1999) scientists at fault: causes and consequences of misconduct in science, in: european science and scientists between freedom and responsibility. luxembourg: office for official publications of the european community., m. beasley et al. (2002) report of the investigation committee on the possibility of scientific misconduct in the work of hendrik schön and coauthors. lucent technologies. available online at the url: http://www.lucent.com/news_events/researchreview.html. we will refer for convenience to this document from now on as “report”., bell labs. winning streak brought awe, and then doubt..

Science, (5578):34-37 2002

MED: 12098682

Goss Levi, B. (2002) Bell Labs Convenes Committee to Investigate Questions of Scientific Misconduct. Physics Today.

Keeping up appearances..

Nature, (6906):419 2002

MED: 12368819

Chang, K. (09-26-2002) Panel Says Bell Labs Scientist Faked Discoveries”, New York Times.

Kolata, g. (09-29-2002) assigning blame is fraud is found. new york times., not quite shipshape..

AUTHOR UNKNOWN

Nature, (6994):789 2004

MED: 15215820

Citations & impact 

Impact metrics, citations of article over time, smart citations by scite.ai smart citations by scite.ai include citation statements extracted from the full text of the citing article. the number of the statements may be higher than the number of citations provided by europepmc if one paper cites another multiple times or lower if scite has not yet processed some of the citing articles. explore citation contexts and check if this article has been supported or disputed. https://scite.ai/reports/10.1007/s11948-006-0051-6, article citations, expanding research integrity: a cultural-practice perspective..

Valkenburg G , Dix G , Tijdink J , de Rijcke S

Sci Eng Ethics , 27(1):10, 09 Feb 2021

Cited by: 3 articles | PMID: 33559767 | PMCID: PMC7872949

Free to read & use

Making researchers responsible: attributions of responsibility and ambiguous notions of culture in research codes of conduct.

BMC Med Ethics , 21(1):56, 07 Jul 2020

Cited by: 2 articles | PMID: 32635905 | PMCID: PMC7339540

Addressing research integrity challenges: from penalising individual perpetrators to fostering research ecosystem quality care.

Zwart H , Ter Meulen R

Life Sci Soc Policy , 15(1):5, 10 Jun 2019

Cited by: 5 articles | PMID: 31179512 | PMCID: PMC6556950

When Public Discourse Mirrors Academic Debate: Research Integrity in the Media.

Ampollini I , Bucchi M

Sci Eng Ethics , 26(1):451-474, 03 Apr 2019

Cited by: 1 article | PMID: 30945163

Promoting Virtue or Punishing Fraud: Mapping Contrasts in the Language of 'Scientific Integrity'.

Horbach SPJM , Halffman W

Sci Eng Ethics , 23(6):1461-1485, 19 Dec 2016

Cited by: 14 articles | PMID: 27995445 | PMCID: PMC5705733

Similar Articles 

To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.

Science ethics education part II: changes in attitude toward scientific fraud among medical researchers after a short course in science ethics.

Vuckovic-Dekic L , Gavrilovic D , Kezic I , Bogdanovic G , Brkic S

J BUON , 17(2):391-395, 01 Apr 2012

Cited by: 4 articles | PMID: 22740224

Overview: underserved areas of education in the responsible conduct of research: authorship.

Kalichman MW

Sci Eng Ethics , 17(2):335-339, 26 May 2011

Cited by: 7 articles | PMID: 21611821 | PMCID: PMC3428198

Free to read

Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies?

Sci Eng Ethics , 9(2):243-256, 01 Apr 2003

Cited by: 13 articles | PMID: 12774656

Ethical publishing: the innocent author's guide to avoiding misconduct.

Menopause Int , 13(3):98-102, 01 Sep 2007

Cited by: 2 articles | PMID: 17933094

The integrity of science - lost in translation?

Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol , 28(2):339-347, 28 Mar 2014

Cited by: 6 articles | PMID: 24810194

Europe PMC is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

• Advanced Search
• All new items
• Journal articles
• Manuscripts
• All Categories
• Metaphysics and Epistemology
• Epistemology
• Metaphilosophy
• Metaphysics
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Religion
• Value Theory
• Applied Ethics
• Meta-Ethics
• Normative Ethics
• Philosophy of Gender, Race, and Sexuality
• Philosophy of Law
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Value Theory, Miscellaneous
• Science, Logic, and Mathematics
• Logic and Philosophy of Logic
• Philosophy of Biology
• Philosophy of Cognitive Science
• Philosophy of Computing and Information
• Philosophy of Mathematics
• Philosophy of Physical Science
• Philosophy of Social Science
• Philosophy of Probability
• General Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Science, Misc
• History of Western Philosophy
• Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy
• Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy
• 17th/18th Century Philosophy
• 19th Century Philosophy
• 20th Century Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy, Misc
• Philosophical Traditions
• African/Africana Philosophy
• Asian Philosophy
• Continental Philosophy
• European Philosophy
• Philosophy of the Americas
• Philosophical Traditions, Miscellaneous
• Philosophy, Misc
• Philosophy, Introductions and Anthologies
• Philosophy, General Works
• Teaching Philosophy
• Philosophy, Miscellaneous
• Other Academic Areas
• Natural Sciences
• Social Sciences
• Cognitive Sciences
• Formal Sciences
• Arts and Humanities
• Professional Areas
• Other Academic Areas, Misc
• Submit a book or article
• Upload a bibliography
• Personal page tracking
• Archives we track
• Information for publishers
• Introduction
• Submitting to PhilPapers
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Subscriptions
• Editor's Guide
• The Categorization Project
• For Publishers
• For Archive Admins
• PhilPapers Surveys
• Bargain Finder
• About PhilPapers
• Create an account

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: A case study based approach

Philarchive, external links.

• From the Publisher via CrossRef (no proxy)
• link.springer.com (no proxy)
• link.springer.com [2] (no proxy)

Through your library

• Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
• Configure custom resolver

Similar books and articles

Citations of this work, references found in this work.

•   DigitalGeorgetown Home
• Bioethics Research Library of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics
• Bioethics Literature and Resources
• EthxWeb: Literature in Bioethics

Show simple item record

Scientific Misconduct and Science Ethics: A Case Study Based Approach

This item appears in the following collection(s), related items.

Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.

Scientific Misconduct and Participation Rates in Population-Based Epidemiological Research: The NOWAC Study 

Center for Study of Ethics in the Professions

More in center for study of ethics in the professions.

Founded in 1976, the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions was the first interdisciplinary center of its kind to focus on ethics in the professions. During its forty year history, it has continued to be one of the nation's leading centers on practical and professional ethics.

The mission of the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions to:

• educate students as responsible professionals,
• to reflect on the wider implications of scientific progress,
• and to contribute to the shaping of technology in accordance with fundamental human values

Our research program focuses on ethics in the life sciences and ethical and societal issues of emerging technologies, with a particular focus on the philosophical and ethical aspects of neuroscience. The Ethics Center is committed to multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional research, to projects that combine empirical investigation with conceptual analysis, and to projects that introduce and propagate innovations in teaching. Furthermore, the Ethics Center Library houses a unique collection of ethics codes from all over the world and a large collection of ethics education materials.

Subscribe to the CSEP Newsletter

Subscribe to receive our bi-yearly newsletter and updates.  

Contact Center for Study of Ethics in the Professions

Department type, learn more....

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach (Q36565769)

Identifiers, wikipedia (0 entries), wikibooks (0 entries), wikinews (0 entries), wikiquote (0 entries), wikisource (0 entries), wikiversity (0 entries), wikivoyage (0 entries), wiktionary (0 entries), multilingual sites (0 entries).

Published: August 17, 2010

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000318
• Reader Comments

Citation: Michalek AM, Hutson AD, Wicher CP, Trump DL (2010) The Costs and Underappreciated Consequences of Research Misconduct: A Case Study. PLoS Med 7(8): e1000318. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000318

Copyright: © 2010 Michalek et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this article.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviations: AC, aggregate costs; IC, intangible costs; MC, measurable costs; ORI, Office of Research Integrity

Provenance: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Arthur M Michalek is Senior Vice President for Educational Affairs; Alan D. Hutson is Chair, Biostatistics; Camille P. Wicher is Vice President, Corporate Ethics and Research Subject Protection; Donald L Trump is President and CEO.

Summary Points

• The consequences of scientific misconduct are far-ranging and the costs associated with their investigation are substantial.
• It is possible to estimate the cost (direct and indirect) of investigating a single case of scientific misconduct.
• For a specific investigation for which costs were estimated for all phases of the review process, direct cost estimates approached US$525,000.
• For an individual country, the total costs to associated with the review of all cases of scientific misconduct, both reported and not reported to the Office of Research Integrity, are likely to be exponentially higher.

Fallout from scientific misconduct can be pervasive. From the broadest perspective, the public, current and future patients, funding agencies, and even the course of research may be adversely affected by scientific misconduct. At the local level. members of the perpetrator's laboratory, colleagues, trainees, and the financial resources and reputation of the home institution may become tainted. The costs associated with these acts are substantial. This article will present a model we have developed to estimate the monetary costs of scientific misconduct. Estimates are based on a case that occurred at our institution, the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, which is a National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Center located in the United States. Our experiences will likely not be wholly representative of other institutions, but we feel could be instructional and should serve as a guide in the calculation of costs at other institutions.

Scientific misconduct is defined by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results” [1] . The misconduct must be “committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, and there must be a significant departure from accepted practices” [1] .

Scientific misconduct likely dates back to the earliest days of scientific inquiry. Fanelli [2] conducted a meta-analysis of published surveys that asked scientists whether they or a colleague had ever committed scientific misconduct. Approximately 2% of respondents admitted to have committed scientific misconduct and 14% reported knowledge of such behavior by their colleagues [2] . The deleterious effects of these transgressions on the scientific knowledge base cannot be overstated. A poignant example is related by Shafer in his review of Scott Reuben's fraudulent research, which comprised 21 articles and abstracts spanning 15 years [3] . These articles focused on the long-term beneficial effects of perioperative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration. As Shafer so eloquently stated, this misinformation “is deeply woven into many review articles, meta-analyses, lectures summaries, and the memories …” of individuals exposed to this information. The obvious questions are: can we re-educate everyone who has been swayed, consciously or unconsciously, by fraudulent research and, if so, how?

Assessing the Costs of Scientific Misconduct

The costs associated with scientific misconduct can be divided into three domains: conduct of the fraudulent research, investigation, and remediation.

Costs Associated with the Conduct of the Fraudulent Research

These costs includes all monetary investments (institute start-up funds, grant funding) made in the fabricated research as well as intangibles such as loss of productivity of the associated research group, loss of trust, the demoralization of faculty/trainees, and misdirection of the research efforts of other labs. In some cases, the institution may be required to reimburse the funding agency for costs of the fraudulent research as well as pay penalties, and in certain instances, temporarily suspend other studies during the investigation.

Investigative Costs

An aspect frequently overlooked in the discussion of misconduct costs are those directly related to the investigation. These costs vary considerably and are dependent on the nature of the incident (type of misconduct, complexity, etc.) and the associated time required to investigate. However, all investigations share similar elements that need to be considered when calculating overall costs. At our institution, in keeping with the model proposed by the ORI, allegations of misconduct proceed through three levels of review, each assuming escalating responsibilities and costs.

At our institution, allegations are initially reviewed by the Vice President for Corporate Ethics and the Dean of Educational Affairs. If the allegation is determined to have merit, an inquiry is initiated. This second level requires review by a committee appointed by the Vice President for Corporate Ethics and the Dean. Membership consists of the Vice President for Corporate Ethics, the Dean, four faculty members, and an attorney. The Inquiry Committee determines whether there is sufficient evidence of possible research misconduct to warrant an investigation. The inquiry is not intended to reach a final conclusion about whether research misconduct definitely occurred or who was responsible. That is the role of the Investigation Committee, which is appointed by the Vice President for Corporate Ethics and the Dean. Membership is broader and includes other professional expertise. Membership consists of the Vice President for Corporate Ethics, the Dean, at least two individuals from outside the unit or department of the complainant(s) who are expert in the subject matter or scientific area, a statistician, a representative from Human Resources, an attorney, and any other members deemed appropriate. The purpose of the investigation is to explore the allegations in detail, to examine the evidence in depth, and to determine specifically whether research misconduct has been committed, by whom, and to what extent.

Costs of the investigation may be divided into personnel (committee membership, witnesses, and support staff), material costs, and consultant costs. The most expensive component of any investigation is faculty time. Faculty members engaged in our reviews are usually associate or full professors. Faculty members on investigation committees spend considerable time both in and out of the formal committee meetings. Time spent outside formal meetings is directed at reviewing materials, securing additional information, reanalysis of data, writing, and other preparatory activities. Our experience is that faculty spend anywhere from three to ten times more time working outside of meetings than they do in meetings. Individual time commitments vary based on the individual's expertise as well as committee assignments. Costs associated with witnesses' time must also be considered. The number and frequency of witness interviews varies based on the complexity of the investigation. Witnesses also spend time outside of meetings preparing their testimony. Administrative support costs include secretarial and clerical time needed for transcription of recordings, photocopying, filing, and other related tasks. Most investigations will require sequestration of physical materials including all laboratory notebooks, computers, and other electronic storage devices. At times forensic computer experts are required to analyze hard drives as well as to retrieve e-mail exchanges or other documents that are still resident on the institutional server.

Remediation Costs

These costs include those necessitated by program closure. Not only are funds previously invested in the fraudulent research lost, but so too are funds currently supporting the fraudulent research. Moreover, pending grant applications may be recalled and further funding of existing grants may be delayed or lost. Loss of funding can be devastating to the honest members of the affected laboratory. A myriad of administrative decisions need to be made regarding such things as continuance of trainees (pre- and postdoctoral) and staff members from the affected lab, impact on trainee's research; and the costs of possibly phasing out bona fide research conducted by the guilty party. Other less-obvious costs include reputational damage to the institution, which may affect competitiveness of future grants as well as fundraising and, for those involved in patient care, there is potential patient harm and loss of patient trust and revenue. Institutional expenses may also include the cost of civil legal action from patients. Extrainstitutional costs may include intellectual corruption of the scientific literature, misdirection of future research, costs to journals in retracting deceptive research, and costs to revise guidelines based on fraudulent research.

A Possible Statistical Approach for Scientific Fraud Analyses

Very little research has been done to develop methods for formally modeling the cost of scientific fraud. Research in this area has been directed primarily at attempting to model the behavior of the individual scientist with respect to incentives for committing a fraudulent act. It has been our aim to develop a data-based modeling approach aimed at better understanding the factors that contribute to the overall cost of scientific fraud.

• MC = measurable costs
• IC = intangible costs
• ε = stochastic error.

Examples of some ICs would include loss of future earnings related to a line of research; reputational damage to the institution, which may affect competitiveness for future grants and contracts; negative effects on fundraising; and, for those involved in patient care, loss of patient revenue.

• x 1  = grant direct and indirect dollars returned to the funding agency,
• x 2  = institutional legal costs,
• x 3  = hourly cost of faculty time commitment to an investigation panel,
• x 4  = cost of sequestration of evidentiary materials,
• x 5  = human resource–related costs,
• x 6  = institutional start-up costs for supporting the fraudulent research,
• x 7  = Institutional Review Board–related costs for suspending and closing clinical studies,
• x 8  = Institute Animal Care and Use Committee–related costs for suspending and closing animal studies,
• x 9  = payment of penalties related to tainted research,
• x 10  = hourly costs associated with retracting published research,
• x 11  = hourly costs of specialized consultants needed for advisement to the investigation panel.

To date we have not gathered cost factor information prospectively or with any degree of precision in order to fit these types of models. Hence, our cost estimates to date amount to a “best guess” scenario, as illustrated in the next section. Ultimately, to apply this model a database will be developed from which we can examine statistically the relative contributions of each factor to the MC. Then, for example, the fitted model then may be utilized for estimating the cost of a future misconduct case in terms of resource management.

Applying This Approach to a Case

The following case study was based on an actual investigation. Cost estimates are given in US dollars.

Allegation.

An allegation of research misconduct was made against a senior scientist for enhancing and fabricating images and data contained in a federal grant application.

The allegation, in accordance with institute policy, was reviewed by the Vice President for Corporate Ethics and the Dean. A determination was made that there was sufficient credible and specific potential evidence of research misconduct to warrant an inquiry. The deliberation and data gathering to support this decision cost approximately $1,000.00.

An Inquiry Panel was convened consisting of the aforementioned membership. The Panel reviewed the grant application in question, additional information regarding more than a dozen figures in the grant, as well as e-mail correspondence between the respondent and several staff members. The panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the allegation and that an investigation was warranted. Panel time required to review and discuss data to support this decision cost about $13,000.00.

At this point the respondent's laboratory equipment was sequestered as were all lab notebooks, computer hard drives, and other electronic devices. Sequestration involved members of institute security, the Information Technology department, and an outside forensic computer company. All computer and electronic devices were copied and copies supplied to the laboratory personnel so the affected lab could continue working on research other than that related to the questionable project until the investigation was completed and a decision had been reached. These actions cost an estimated $10,000.00.

Investigation.

An Investigation Committee was empanelled as described above. Over the course of ten meetings the Committee reviewed all of the questionable lab figures, primary data sources from lab books, electronic data and figures, and e-mail correspondence. The Committee also interviewed the respondent, the complainant, and other members of the laboratory in question. Given the complexity of the case the Investigation Committee was composed of eight individuals who spent well over 100 hours in meetings (∼$78,000) and an estimated 700 hours outside of committee (∼$430,000). Other related costs included transcriptionist and clerical support for photocopying, filing, scheduling, and correspondence (∼$2,500). Moreover, given that the Investigation Committee determined that there was evidence of scientific misconduct, a review of the scientist's other grant applications as well as manuscripts was undertaken. Approximately 50 person-hours were spent reviewing other grants and manuscripts (∼$4,000).

Total estimate of costs.

We estimate that the direct cost of this case approached $525,000. This includes faculty and witness salaries of about $512,000, clerical support costs of ∼$2,500, and other personnel costs (security, Information Technology, contracted forensics) of ∼$10,000. Other significant costs not factored into the above figure (indirect costs) include deliberation time of senior administrative faculty (CEO, Senior Vice Presidents for Scientific and Translational Research, Executive Vice President, Chair), loss of current grants ($283,000), withdrawal of two pending grant applications (∼$615,000) and one renewal (∼$363,000), the cost to the Institute of maintaining affected pre- and postdocs until other laboratories could be found (∼$40,000), and the cost of maintaining all the records for at least 6 years after the investigation has been completed.

The precise prevalence of scientific misconduct is unknown, owing largely to its clandestine nature as well as to the problem of underreporting. Fanelli [2] estimates occurrences between 2% (self) to 14% (others). Other sources cite the risk of misconduct as being less than 1% [4] . The costs associated with institutional investigations are quite significant. We conservatively estimate that if one were to apply our observed costs to all of the allegations of misconduct reported in the United States to the ORI ( n  = 217 cases) in their last reporting year, the direct costs would exceed $110 million. We hope that our work will encourage others to add to our understandings of these costs.

Scientists are people and subject to the frailties of human nature, so we may never be able to totally eliminate scientific misconduct. However, we can prevent those cases of misconduct more related to “omission” of scientific standards rather than commission of misdeeds. How this can be achieved has not yet been determined. Most academic institutions have, like ours, undertaken a number of efforts to increase awareness through education and training, setting forth and enforcing scientific codes of conduct, providing mentorship training, auditing and monitoring procedures, and implementing procedures for reporting and investigating alleged incidents of misconduct. The ultimate effectiveness of these approaches may take time to discern. What is known, however, is that the costs of these proactive activities pale in comparison to the costs of a single case of scientific misconduct.

Author Contributions

ICMJE criteria for authorship read and met: AMM ADH CPW DLT. Agree with the manuscript's results and conclusions: AMM ADH CPW DLT. Designed the experiments/the study: AMM CPW DLT. Analyzed the data: AMM. Collected data/did experiments for the study: AMM CPW. Wrote the first draft of the paper: AMM. Contributed to the writing of the paper: AMM ADH CPW DLT.

• 1. Department of Health and Human Services (17 May 2005) 42CFR Parts 50 and 93, Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct; Final Rule. Federal Register.
• View Article
• Google Scholar

(Stanford users can avoid this Captcha by logging in.)

SearchWorks catalog

• Chat with us (limited to Stanford community)
• Email a reference question
• Find a subject specialist
• Using SearchWorks
• Connect to e-resources
• Report a connection problem
• Interlibrary borrowing
• Suggest a purchase (limited to Stanford community)
• System status
• Advanced search
• Course reserves
• Clear all lists

Ethics in science : ethical misconduct in scientific research

Available online, at the library.

Science Library (Li and Ma)

More options.

• Find it at other libraries via WorldCat
• Contributors

Description

Creators/contributors, contents/summary.

• Irresponsible conduct in research: What is it, why does it happen, and how do we identify it when it happens? What constitutes scientific misconduct? Authorship and intellectual property Bad ethics vs. bad science New results that prove old results wrong The whistle-blower's dilemma Wrapping up What happens to those who violate responsible conduct? Human and animal subjects Wrapping up What is peer review's role in responsible conduct in research? Revisiting Vlad and Frankie Can peer reviewers be unethical? Wrapping up What effect on the public does scientific misconduct have? MMR and autism Climategate HIV vaccine Animal rights groups Cold fusion Bernard Kettlewell Electromagnetic field and high-tension power lines Fracking and pollution Wrapping up What constitutes responsible conduct from the point of view of human/animal subjects in research? Can intervention or interference by the federal government result in research misconduct? Can we prevent misconduct in research? Intentional negligence in acknowledgment of previous work Deliberate fabrication of data Deliberate omission of known data that doesn't agree with hypotheses Passing another researcher's data as one's own Publication of results without consent of all the researchers Failure to acknowledge all the researchers who performed the work Conflict-of-interest issues Repeated publication of too-similar results Breach of confidentiality Misrepresenting others' work Wrapping up Case Studies Darwin and Wallace Rangaswamy Srinivasan-VISX patent dispute Schwartz and Mirkin Corey and Woodward Cordova, Scripps Research Institute, and Stockholm University La Clair and hexacyclinol Woodward and quinine DNA David Baltimore and Teresa Imanishi-Kari John Fenn-Yale patent dispute VIOXX(R) Index.
• (source: Nielsen Book Data)

Bibliographic information

Browse related items.

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

• Original Research/Scholarship
• Published: 25 January 2021

Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers’ Perceptions in Spain

• Ramón A. Feenstra   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4775-8762 1 ,
• Emilio Delgado López-Cózar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8184-551X 2 &
• Daniel Pallarés-Domínguez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6510-8448 1  

Science and Engineering Ethics volume  27 , Article number:  1 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

2042 Accesses

11 Citations

82 Altmetric

Metrics details

A Correction to this article was published on 20 May 2021

This article has been updated

Empirical studies have revealed a disturbing prevalence of research misconduct in a wide variety of disciplines, although not, to date, in the areas of ethics and philosophy. This study aims to provide empirical evidence on perceptions of how serious a problem research misconduct is in these two disciplines in Spain, particularly regarding the effects that the model used to evaluate academics’ research performance may have on their ethical behaviour. The methodological triangulation applied in the study combines a questionnaire, a debate at the annual meeting of scientific association, and in-depth interviews. Of the 541 questionnaires sent out, 201 responses were obtained (37.1% of the total sample), with a significant difference in the participation of researchers in philosophy (30.5%) and in ethics (52.8%); 26 researchers took part in the debate and 14 interviews were conducted. The questionnaire results reveal that 91.5% of the respondents considered research misconduct to be on the rise; 63.2% considered at least three of the fraudulent practices referred to in the study to be commonplace, and 84.1% identified two or more such practices. The researchers perceived a high prevalence of duplicate publication (66.5%) and self-plagiarism (59.0%), use of personal influence (57.5%) and citation manipulation (44.0%), in contrast to a low perceived incidence of data falsification or fabrication (10.0%). The debate and the interviews corroborated these data. Researchers associated the spread of these misconducts with the research evaluation model applied in Spain.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution .

Access options

Buy single article.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Rent this article via DeepDyve.

Data Availability

A summary of the results gathered in each of the three processes conducted was published in Spanish in an open report. Available at:  http://repositori.uji.es/xmlui/handle/10234/189924

Change history

20 may 2021.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00309-6

Ana, J., Koehlmoos, T., Smith, R., & Yan, L. (2013). Research misconduct in low- and middle-income countries. Plos Medicine, 10 (3), e1001315. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001315 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13 (4), 437–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5 .

Ataie-Ashtiani, B. (2018). World map of scientific misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24 (5), 1653–1656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9939-6 .

Bailey, C. D. (2019). Unethical practices by accounting researchers: Incidence, intentions, and insights. SSRR . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3501602 .

Bedeian, A. G., Taylor, S. G., & Miller, A. N. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9 (4), 715–725. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2010.56659889 .

Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Google Scholar  

Bretag, T., & Carapiet, S. (2007). A preliminary study to identify the extent of self-plagiarism in Australian academic research. Plagiary, 2 (5), 92–103.

Bruton, S. (2014). Self-plagiarism and textual recycling: Legitimate forms of research misconduct. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 21 (3), 176–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.848071 .

Bruton, S. V., Brown, M., & Sacco, D. F. (2020). Ethical consistency and experience: An attempt to influence researcher attitudes toward questionable research practices through reading prompts. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 15 (3), 216–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619894435 .

Buljan, I., Barać, L., & Marušić, A. (2018). How researchers perceive research misconduct in biomedicine and how they would prevent it: A qualitative study in a small scientific community. Accountability in Research, 25 (4), 220–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1463162 .

Butler, L. (2004). What happens when funding is linked to publication counts? In H. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Smoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 389–405). Dordrecht: Springer.

Cruz-Castro, L., & Sanz-Menendez, L. (2007). New legitimation models and the transformation of the public research organization field. International Studies of Management and Organization, 37 (1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.2753/IMO0020-8825370102 .

Dal-Ré, R. (2020). Analysis of biomedical Spanish articles retracted between 1970 and 2018. Medicina clínica, 154 (4), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcle.2019.04.033 .

De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1 (1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43 .

Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2010). Claroscuros de la evaluación científica en España. Medes Medicina en Español, 4, 25–29.

Delgado López-Cózar, E., Torres-Salinas, D., & Roldán-López, Á. (2007). El fraude en la ciencia: reflexiones a partir del caso Hwang. El profesional de la información, 16 (2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2007.mar.07 .

Derrick, G. E., & Pavone, V. (2013). Democratising research evaluation: Achieving greater public engagement with bibliometrics-informed peer review. Science and Public Policy, 40 (5), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct007 .

Dhingra, D., & Mishra, D. (2014). Public misconduct among medical professionals in India. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 11 (2), 104–107. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2014.026 .

Dougherty, M. V. (2018). Correcting the scholarly record for research integrity. In the aftermath of plagiarism . Cham: Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

DuBois, J. M., Anderson, E. E., Chibnall, J., Carroll, K., Gibb, T., Ogbuka, C., & Rubbelke, T. (2013). Understanding research misconduct: A comparative analysis of 120 cases of professional wrongdoing. Accountability in Research, 20 (5–6), 320–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822248 .

Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4 (5), e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 .

Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS ONE, 5 (4), e10271. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271 .

Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS ONE, 10 (6), e0127556.

Felaefel, M., Salem, M., Jaafar, R., Jassim, G., Edwards, H., Rashid-Doubell, F., et al. (2018). A cross-sectional survey study to assess prevalence and attitudes regarding research misconduct among investigators in the Middle East. Journal of Academic Ethics, 16 (1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9295-9 .

Fonseca-Mora, M. C., Tur-Viñes, V., & Gutiérrez-San Miguel, B. (2014). Ética y revistas científicas españolas de Comunicación, Educación y Psicología: la percepción editora. Revista española de documentación científica, 37 (4), e065. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2014.4.1151 .

Gilbert, F. J., & Denison, A. R. (2003). Research misconduct. Clinical Radiology, 58 (7), 499–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9260(03)00176-4 .

Godecharle, S., Fieuws, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2018). Scientists still behaving badly? A survey within industry and universities. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24 (6), 1697–1717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9957-4 .

Grey, A., Avenell, A., Gamble, G., & Bolland, M. (2019). Assessing and raising concerns about duplicate publication, authorship transgressions and data errors in a body of preclinical research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26 (22), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00152-w .

Gross, C. (2016). Scientific misconduct. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 693–711. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033437 .

Hansson, S. O. (2008). Philosophical plagiarism. Theoria, 74 (2), 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.2008.00010.x .

Hansson, S. O. (2015). The ethics of doing philosophy. Theoria, 81 (2), 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12067 .

Hansson, S. O. (2017). The ethics of doing ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23 (1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9772-3 .

Hansson, S. O. (2019). Philosophical plagiarism under the spotlight. Theoria, 85 (2), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12183 .

Haven, T. L., Bouter, L. M., Smulders, Y. M., & Tijdink, J. K. (2019a). Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks. PLoS ONE, 14 (6), e0217931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217931 .

Haven, T. L., Tijdink, J. K., Martinson, B. C., & Bouter, L. M. (2019b). Perceptions of research integrity climate differ between academic ranks and disciplinary fields: Results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam. PLoS ONE, 14 (1), e0210599. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210599 .

Haven, T. L., Tijdink, J. K., Pasman, H. R., Widdershoven, G., Ter Riet, G., & Bouter, L. M. (2019c). Researchers’ perceptions of research misbehaviours: A mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Research Integrity and Peer Review . https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0081-7 .

Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41 (2), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007 .

Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., Pratt, T. C., & Mays, R. D. (2019). The perceived causes of research misconduct among faculty members in the natural, social, and applied sciences. Studies in Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1593352 .

Hopp, C., & Hoover, G. A. (2017). How prevalent is academic misconduct in management research? Journal of Business Research, 80 (C), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.07.003 .

Horbach, S. S., & Halffman, W. W. (2019). The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism.’ Research Policy, 48 (2), 492–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.004 .

Jefferson, T. (1998). Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: Scientific misconduct or necessity? Science and Engineering Ethics, 4 (2), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-998-0043-9 .

Jiménez-Contreras, E., de Moya Anegón, F., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2003). The evolution of research activity in Spain: The impact of the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI). Research Policy, 32 (1), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00008-2 .

Jiménez-Contreras, E., López-Cózar, E. D., Ruiz-Pérez, R., & Fernández, V. M. (2002). Impact-factor rewards affect Spanish research. Nature, 417 (6892), 898–898. https://doi.org/10.1038/417898b .

John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23 (5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953 .

Kokiwar, P. R., Gaiki, V. V., & Soodi Reddy, A. K. (2020). Prevalence and patterns of research misconduct among medical college faculties. MRIMS Journal of Health Sciences, 8 (2), 35–39.

Krstić, S. B. (2015). Research integrity practices from the perspective of early-career researchers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21 (5), 1181–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9607-z .

Liao, Q. J., Zhang, Y. Y., Fan, Y. C., Zheng, M. H., Bai, Y., Eslick, G. D., et al. (2018). Perceptions of Chinese biomedical researchers towards academic misconduct: A comparison between 2015 and 2010. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24 (2), 629–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9913-3 .

Maggio, L., Dong, T., Driessen, E., & Artino, A., Jr. (2019). Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8 (2), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0501-x .

Marco-Cuenca, G., Salvador-Olivan, J. A., & Arquero-Avilés, R. (2019). Ética en la publicación científica biomedical. Revisión de las publicaciones retractadas en España. El profesional de la información, 28 (2), e280222. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.mar.22 .

Marini, G. (2018). Tools of individual evaluation and prestige recognition in Spain: How sexenio ‘mints the golden coin of authority.’ European Journal of Higher Education, 8 (2), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2018.1428649 .

Martin, B. R. (2013). Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42 (5), 1005–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.011 .

Martinson, B., Anderson, M., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a .

Moctezuma, S. E. (2016). Ética en la publicación de revistas académicas: percepción de los editores en ciencias sociales. Innovación Educativa, 16 (72), 34–57.

Okonta, P., & Rossouw, T. (2013). Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria. Developing World Bioethics, 13 (3), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00339.x .

Okonta, P. I., & Rossouw, T. (2014). Misconduct in research: A descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country. BMC Medical Ethics, 15 (1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-25 .

Polonioli, A. (2017). New issues for new methods: Ethical and editorial challenges for an experimental philosophy. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23, 1009–1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9838-2 .

Pupovac, V., & Fanelli, D. (2015). Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21 (5), 1331–1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9600-6 .

Pupovac, V., Prijić-Samaržija, S., & Petrovečki, M. (2017). Research misconduct in the Croatian scientific community: A survey assessing the forms and characteristics of research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23 (1), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9767-0 .

Rohwer, A., Young, T., Wager, E., & Garner, P. (2017). Authorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: Views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers. British Medical Journal Open, 7 (11), e018467. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018467 .

Ruiz-Pérez, R., Delgado López-Cózar, E., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2010). Principios y criterios utilizados en España por la Comisión Nacional Evaluadora de la Actividad Investigadora (CNEAI) para la valoración de las publicaciones científicas: 1989–2009. Psicothema, 22 (4), 898–908.

Stretton, S., Bramich, N. J., Keys, J. R., Monk, J. A., Ely, J. A., Haley, C., et al. (2012). Publication misconduct and plagiarism retractions: A systematic, retrospective study. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 28 (10), 1575–1583. https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2012.728131 .

Tijdink, J. K., Verbeke, R., & Smulders, Y. M. (2014). Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9 (5), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264614552421 .

Zwart, H. (2017). Tales of research misconduct. A lacanian diagnostics of integrity challenges in science novels . Switzerland: Springer Nature.

Download references

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Philosophy and Sociology, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, Universitat Jaume I de Castellón, Avd/Sos Baynat s/n, 12071, Castellón de la plana, Spain

Ramón A. Feenstra & Daniel Pallarés-Domínguez

Department of Information and Communication, Facultad de Comunicación y Documentación, Universidad de Granada, Calle Campus De Cartuja, s/n, 18011, Granada, Spain

Emilio Delgado López-Cózar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramón A. Feenstra .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Feenstra, R.A., Delgado López-Cózar, E. & Pallarés-Domínguez, D. Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers’ Perceptions in Spain. Sci Eng Ethics 27 , 1 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00278-w

Download citation

Received : 11 October 2020

Accepted : 04 January 2021

Published : 25 January 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00278-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Research misconduct
• Evaluation policy
• Self-plagiarism

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Scientific misconduct and science ethics: a case study based approach

The Schön misconduct case has been widely publicized in the media and has sparked intense discussions within and outside the scientific community about general issues of science ethics. This paper analyses the Report of the official Committee charged with the investigation in order to show that what at first seems to be a quite uncontroversial case, turns out to be an accumulation of many interesting and non-trivial questions (of both ethical and philosophical interest). In particular, the paper intends to show that daily scientific practices are structurally permeated by chronic problems; this has serious consequences for how practicing scientists assess their work in general, and scientific misconduct in particular. A philosophical approach is proposed that sees scientific method and scientific ethics as inextricably interwoven. Furthermore, the paper intends to show that the definition of coauthorship that the members of the Committee use, although perhaps clear in theory, proves highly problematic in practice and raises more questions that it answers. A final plea is made for a more self-reflecting attitude of scientists as far as the moral and methodological profile of science is concerned as a key element for improving not only their scientific achievements, but also their assessment of problematic cases.

Related Papers

Luca Consoli

Ethics in engineering and science has become a hot topic not only on the agendas of academic institutions and funding agencies, but also among scientists and engineers themselves and the general public. Analysis of misconduct cases shows that fundamental issues concerning proper methodology as well as ethics are at stake. Traditionally, questions of methodology and ethics have been treated more or less as separate issues, or as being related but fundamentally different, while practitioners tend implicitly to see ethics as the underpinning of their methodology. I contend that methodological and ethical normativity are linked in a very fundamental way. I argue that the relationship between method and ethics deserves to be addressed more explicitly and can form the basis of a new approach towards ethical issues in science and engineering. In particular, a virtue-ethical based approach, defining the figure of the ‘good practitioner’, has many advantages. As an example, I consider the issue of the function and utility of ethical codes of conduct. Practice shows that these codes are seldom known to practitioners and, that when they are, practitioners have not internalised them. In other words, they do not match with notions of proper behaviour as experienced by scientists and engineers themselves. I argue that as long as the ethical codes are top-down regulations of an institution, rather than the ‘living morality’ of the virtuous community of scientific practice, they will remain of limited applicability.

Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research

Larry D Claxton

Mutation Research-reviews in Mutation Research

The examination of a single scientific manuscript seldom alerts scientists, reviewers, editors, and scientific administrators to the fabrication and falsification of data and information. This review shows that most documented cases of scientific fraud involve falsification (altering truthful information) and fabrication (inventing information where none previously existed). Plagiarism is much less frequent. The review of published accounts also shows that the publication of scientific papers containing recognizable fraudulent material is very low, probably less than 0.02% and extremely difficult to detect. Because most reported cases of fraud have involved research done at prestigious organizations with distinguished co-authors, and that is published in journals with exacting review processes, it becomes evident that some unscrupulous scientists are adept at fabricating and falsifying data. However, “significant” scientific fraud is detected when scientists repeatedly report results that cannot be independently verified, when colleagues report suspicious behavior, or scientific audits are performed. This review documents and compares many of the better-known cases of scientific fraud. Fraudulent behavior has served as the impetus for the scientific community to develop publication procedures and guidelines that help to guard against not only fraudulent behavior but also against other types of unethical or undesirable behaviors. A companion paper reviews the non-fraudulent issues associated with scientific publication.

Russell Johnson

Prof. Mohamed Labib Salem

Fostering Integrity in Research

Diki Purnawati

Hoang Thu Trang

Research Ethics Timeline

European Journal of Engineering Education

Higher Education Handbook Of Theory and Research

Marta A. Shaw

Integrity in research is fundamental to the advancement of knowledge, for the public’s support of research, and the autonomy of the academic profession. Misconduct in the forms of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism introduces error and misrepresentation into the scientific record. This chapter reviews the history of research integrity and misconduct in the United States, as well as the nature and prevalence of misconduct. It then turns to factors associated with misconduct and efforts to promote integrity, which include policy and regulation, normative pressure, codes of conduct, training, and mentoring.

RELATED PAPERS

Brandon Vaidyanathan , Simranjit Khalsa , Elaine Ecklund

Science and Engineering Ethics

Massimiano Bucchi

Frederick Green

Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance

Barbara K. Redman

Gary L Comstock

Daan Schuurbiers

Svetla Baykoucheva

Md Ekram Hossain

Marco Cosentino

Erik Fisher

The Journal of Higher Education

Karen Seashore Louis

VISHAKHA GUPTA

David Johnson

Péter Kakuk

Journal of Medical Ethics

Martin Guthold

Aldo Fontes-Pereira

Sverre Spoelstra , Helen Delaney

Sadiq Isah Radda

Nicole Montenegro

Phil Myers , Carmen J. Head

Journal of Research Administration

Lynne Chronister , Jade Rosina McCutcheon

College & Research Libraries

John S Richardson

Marie-Andree Jacob

Texas State PA Applied Research Projects

Gloria González Fuster

Andrea Polonioli

Martin Tomitsch

Toxicology and industrial health

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

Martin Bridgstock

Mark Israel , Jackie Street , Wendy Rogers

Jorge Fabres

Dr. Anh Tho Andres Kammler

Matthias Kaiser

David Pontille

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2023