• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

从巴尔的摩到贝尔实验室:关于科学不端行为二十年辩论的反思

From Baltimore to Bell Labs: reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct.

作者信息

Resnik David B

机构信息

2S-17 Brody Building, The Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA.

出版信息

Account Res. 2003 Apr-Jun;10(2):123-35. doi: 10.1080/08989620300508.

DOI:10.1080/08989620300508
PMID:14577424
Abstract

This essay proposes a new definition of scientific "misconduct," which is broader than the definition recently adopted by the U.S. government. According to the proposed definition, misconduct is a serious and intentional violation of accepted scientific practices, commonsense ethical norms, or research regulations in proposing, designing, conducting, reviewing, or reporting research. Punishable misconduct includes fabrication of data or experiments, falsification of data, plagiarism, or interference with a misconduct investigation. Misconduct does not include honest errors, differences of opinion, or ethically questionable research practices.

摘要

本文提出了一个关于科学“不当行为”的新定义,该定义比美国政府最近采用的定义更为宽泛。根据所提出的定义,不当行为是指在提出、设计、进行、评审或报告研究时,严重且故意地违反公认的科学实践、常识性道德规范或研究规定。应受惩处的不当行为包括伪造数据或实验、篡改数据、抄袭或干扰不当行为调查。不当行为不包括诚实的错误、意见分歧或道德上有问题的研究实践。

相似文献

1
From Baltimore to Bell Labs: reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct.从巴尔的摩到贝尔实验室:关于科学不端行为二十年辩论的反思
Account Res. 2003 Apr-Jun;10(2):123-35. doi: 10.1080/08989620300508.
2
Definitions and boundaries of research misconduct: perspectives from a federal government viewpoint.科研不当行为的定义与界限:来自联邦政府视角的观点
J Higher Educ. 1994 May-Jun;65(3):286-97.
3
Evaluating the oversight of scientific misconduct.评估对科研不端行为的监督
Account Res. 2005 Jul-Sep;12(3):157-62. doi: 10.1080/08989620500216281.
4
Federal actions against plagiarism in research.联邦政府针对研究领域抄袭行为采取的行动。
J Infor Ethics. 1996 Spring;5(1):34-51.
5
Responsibilities of awardee and applicant institutions for dealing with and reporting possible misconduct in science; final rule.获奖者及申请机构处理和报告科学领域可能存在的不当行为的职责;最终规则。
Fed Regist. 1989 Aug 8;54(151):32446-51.
6
A social control perspective on scientific misconduct.关于科研不端行为的社会控制视角。
J Higher Educ. 1994 May-Jun;65(3):242-60.
7
[Scientific misconduct: A major threat for medical research].[科学不端行为:医学研究的重大威胁]
Rev Med Interne. 2020 May;41(5):330-334. doi: 10.1016/j.revmed.2020.02.004. Epub 2020 Feb 24.
8
Research misconduct and the scientific process: continuing quality improvement.科研不端行为与科学过程:持续质量改进
Account Res. 2006 Jul-Sep;13(3):225-46. doi: 10.1080/08989620600848611.
9
Regulation of scientific misconduct in federally funded research.联邦政府资助研究中科研不端行为的监管。
South Calif Interdiscip Law J. 2000 Fall;10(1):39-105.
10
Scientific misconduct in academia: a survey and analysis of applicable law.学术界的科研不端行为:适用法律的调查与分析
San Diego Law Rev. 1991 Apr-May;28(2):401-28.

引用本文的文献

1
Empowering the Research Community to Investigate Misconduct and Promote Research Integrity and Ethics: New Regulation in Scandinavia.赋予研究社区调查不当行为和促进研究诚信与伦理的权力:斯堪的纳维亚的新规定。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2022 Nov 17;28(6):59. doi: 10.1007/s11948-022-00400-6.
2
Is it time to revise the definition of research misconduct?是否到了修订科研不端行为定义的时候了?
Account Res. 2019 Feb;26(2):123-137. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2019.1570156. Epub 2019 Feb 1.
3
An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists About Research Integrity.
系统伦理:与科学家谈研究诚信。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Aug;25(4):1235-1253. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0064-y. Epub 2018 Sep 24.
4
What is Recklessness in Scientific Research? The Frank Sauer Case.科研不端行为是什么?弗兰克·绍尔案。
Account Res. 2017;24(8):497-502. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2017.1397517. Epub 2017 Nov 6.
5
Data-Intensive Science and Research Integrity.数据密集型科学与科研诚信。
Account Res. 2017;24(6):344-358. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2017.1327813. Epub 2017 May 8.
6
Promoting Virtue or Punishing Fraud: Mapping Contrasts in the Language of 'Scientific Integrity'.促进美德还是惩罚欺诈:“科学诚信”语言中的对比映射。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2017 Dec;23(6):1461-1485. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9858-y. Epub 2016 Dec 19.
7
Institutional Responsibility and the Flawed Genomic Biomarkers at Duke University: A Missed Opportunity for Transparency and Accountability.杜克大学的机构责任与有缺陷的基因组生物标志物:透明度和问责制的错失良机。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2017 Aug;23(4):1199-1205. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9844-4. Epub 2016 Nov 23.
8
Research Misconduct: The Peril of Publish or Perish.科研不端行为:“不发表就灭亡”的危害。
Oman Med J. 2016 Jan;31(1):5-11. doi: 10.5001/omj.2016.02.
9
Research misconduct definitions adopted by U.S. research institutions.美国研究机构采用的研究不当行为定义。
Account Res. 2015;22(1):14-21. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.891943.
10
The Swedish Research Council's definition of 'scientific misconduct': a critique.瑞典研究理事会对“科研不端行为”的定义:一项批评意见。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Feb;21(1):115-26. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9523-2. Epub 2014 Feb 1.