• 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

致力于对研究不端行为指控进行公平调查的全球标准化。

Toward global standardization of conducting fair investigations of allegations of research misconduct.

机构信息

Division of Research Integrity and Ethics, School of Medicine, Shinshu University , Matsumoto, Nagano, Japan.

School of Science, The University of Tokyo , Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.

出版信息

Account Res. 2020 Aug;27(6):327-346. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1747019. Epub 2020 May 12.

DOI:10.1080/08989621.2020.1747019
PMID:32223327
Abstract

In the United States, through nation-wide discussions, the procedures for handling allegations of research misconduct are now well established. Procedures are geared toward carefully treating both complainants and respondents fairly in accordance with the US framework. Other countries, which have their own cultural and legal framework, also need fair and legally compatible procedures for conducting investigations of allegations of research misconduct. Given the rapid growth of international collaboration in research, it is desirable to have a global standard, or common ground, for misconduct investigations. Institutions need clear guidance on important subjects such as what information should be included in the investigation reports, how the investigation committee should be organized once research misconduct allegation has been received, how to conduct the investigation, how the data and information obtained should be taken as evidence for vs. against misconduct, and what policies the investigation committee should follow. We explore these issues from the viewpoint of members of committees investigating accusations of research misconduct (hereafter referred to as "investigation committees") as well as persons overseeing the committees in Japan. We hope to engender productive discussions among experts in misconduct investigations, leading to a formulation of international standards for such investigation.

摘要

在美国,通过全国范围的讨论,处理研究不端行为指控的程序现在已经建立得很好。这些程序旨在根据美国的框架,公平、公正地对待投诉人和被投诉人。其他拥有自己的文化和法律框架的国家,也需要公平和法律兼容的程序来对研究不端行为的指控进行调查。鉴于研究领域的国际合作迅速发展,制定一个关于不当行为调查的全球标准或共同基础是可取的。机构需要明确指导,例如调查报告应包含哪些信息,一旦收到研究不端行为指控,应如何组织调查委员会,如何进行调查,应如何将获得的数据和信息作为支持或反对不当行为的证据,以及调查委员会应遵循哪些政策。我们从调查研究不端行为指控的委员会成员(以下简称“调查委员会”)以及在日本监督委员会的人员的角度探讨这些问题。我们希望在不当行为调查专家之间引发富有成效的讨论,从而制定出此类调查的国际标准。

相似文献

1
Toward global standardization of conducting fair investigations of allegations of research misconduct.致力于对研究不端行为指控进行公平调查的全球标准化。
Account Res. 2020 Aug;27(6):327-346. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1747019. Epub 2020 May 12.
2
Complainant issues in research misconduct: the office of research integrity experience.研究不端行为中的投诉问题:研究诚信办公室的经验
Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2006 Jul;231(7):1264-70. doi: 10.1177/153537020623100712.
3
Australia needs an office of academic integrity.澳大利亚需要一个学术诚信办公室。
Med J Aust. 2006;185(11-12):619-22. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00731.x.
4
The Essential Need for Research Misconduct Allegation Audits.研究不当行为指控审计的必要性
Sci Eng Ethics. 2016 Aug;22(4):1027-1049. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9798-6. Epub 2016 Jun 27.
5
Responding to allegations of scientific misconduct: the procedure at the French National Medical and Health Research Institute.回应科学不端行为指控:法国国家医疗卫生研究院的程序
Sci Eng Ethics. 2000 Jan;6(1):41-8. doi: 10.1007/s11948-000-0021-3.
6
Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).研究机构与期刊在研究诚信案件方面的合作:出版伦理委员会(COPE)的指导。
Maturitas. 2012 Jun;72(2):165-9. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.03.011. Epub 2012 Apr 26.
7
Scientific forensics: how the Office of Research Integrity can assist institutional investigations of research misconduct during oversight review.科学取证:研究诚信办公室如何在监督审查期间协助机构对研究不端行为进行调查。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2010 Dec;16(4):713-35. doi: 10.1007/s11948-010-9208-4. Epub 2010 Jun 5.
8
Scientific misconduct and research integrity for the bench scientist.基础科研人员的科研不端行为与研究诚信
Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 2000 Sep;224(4):220-30. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1373.2000.22425.x.
9
Office of Research Integrity: a reflection of disputes and misunderstandings.科研诚信办公室:争议与误解的反映。
Croat Med J. 1999 Sep;40(3):321-5.
10
Historical model for editor and Office of Research Integrity cooperation in handling allegations, investigation, and retraction in a contentious (Abbs) case of research misconduct.编辑与研究诚信办公室在处理一起有争议的(阿布斯)研究不端案件中的指控、调查和撤稿事宜时的历史合作模式。
Account Res. 2015;22(2):63-80. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.901894.

引用本文的文献

1
What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Investigations into Allegations Underlying Retractions?撤稿通知揭示了哪些与撤稿相关指控的机构调查有关的信息?
Sci Eng Ethics. 2023 Jul 4;29(4):25. doi: 10.1007/s11948-023-00442-4.
2
A study on the content of integrity policies and research integrity management in Chinese universities.中国高校诚信政策内容与科研诚信管理研究
Front Res Metr Anal. 2023 Feb 10;8:943228. doi: 10.3389/frma.2023.943228. eCollection 2023.