Suppr超能文献

观点:无罪推定与尽职调查:应对毫无根据的科研不端行为指控。

Perspective: Innocence and due diligence: managing unfounded allegations of scientific misconduct.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Epithelial Biology Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2733, USA.

出版信息

Acad Med. 2010 Mar;85(3):527-30. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181cd4c7a.

Abstract

While the incidence of fraud in science is well documented, issues related to the establishment of innocence in cases of fallacious allegations remain unaddressed. In this article, the author uses his own experience to examine issues that arise when investigators are falsely accused of scientific fraud. Investigators must understand the processes in place to protect themselves against false accusations. The present system takes a position of guilty until proven innocent, a concept that is antithetical to American principles of jurisprudence. Yet this stance is acceptable as a requirement for membership in the scientific community, more reflective of the rules within a guild organization. The necessity for proof of innocence by members of the scientific community carries obligations that transcend normal legal assumptions. Scientists must safeguard their reputations by organizing and maintaining all original image files and data relevant to publications and grant proposals. Investigators must be able to provide clear documentation rapidly whenever concerns are raised during the review process. Moreover, peer-reviewed journals must be diligent not only in the identification of fraud but also in providing rapid due process for adjudication of allegations. The success of the scientific guild rules of conduct lies in the practice of due diligence by both scientists and journal editors in questions of scientific misconduct.

摘要

虽然科学欺诈的发生率已有充分记录,但在虚假指控案件中确立无罪的相关问题仍未得到解决。本文作者以自己的经验为例,探讨了当调查人员被错误指控科学欺诈时出现的问题。调查人员必须了解保护自己免受虚假指控的程序。现行制度采取有罪推定的立场,这与美国法学原则背道而驰。然而,作为加入科学界的要求,这种立场是可以接受的,更多地反映了行会组织内的规则。科学界成员证明无罪的必要性带来了超越正常法律假设的义务。科学家必须通过组织和维护与出版物和资助提案相关的所有原始图像文件和数据来维护自己的声誉。调查人员必须能够在审查过程中提出质疑时迅速提供明确的文件。此外,同行评议期刊不仅必须善于发现欺诈行为,还必须迅速为裁决指控提供正当程序。科学行会行为准则的成功在于科学家和期刊编辑在科学不端行为问题上都能做到尽职调查。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验