• 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

相似文献

1
Survey study of research integrity officers' perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct.关于研究诚信官员对与研究不当行为实例相关的研究实践看法的调查研究。
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020 Dec 11;5(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s41073-020-00103-1.
2
Research records and the resolution of misconduct allegations at research universities.研究型大学的研究记录与不当行为指控的解决
Account Res. 2007 Jan-Mar;14(1):57-71. doi: 10.1080/08989620601126017.
3
Assessing the preparedness of research integrity officers (RIOs) to appropriately handle possible research misconduct cases.评估研究诚信官员(RIO)在适当处理可能的研究不端行为案件方面的准备情况。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2012 Dec;18(4):605-19. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9274-2. Epub 2011 Jun 7.
4
A Cross-Sectional Survey Study to Assess Prevalence and Attitudes Regarding Research Misconduct among Investigators in the Middle East.一项横断面调查研究,旨在评估中东地区研究人员中科研不端行为的发生率及态度。
J Acad Ethics. 2018 Mar;16(1):71-87. doi: 10.1007/s10805-017-9295-9. Epub 2017 Oct 13.
5
Survey of ethical issues in dental research.牙科研究中的伦理问题调查
J Dent Res. 1996 Feb;75(2):845-55. doi: 10.1177/00220345960750021901.
6
Differing Perceptions Concerning Research Integrity Between Universities and Industry: A Qualitative Study.高校与产业界对研究诚信的认知差异:一项定性研究。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Oct;24(5):1421-1436. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9965-4. Epub 2017 Sep 14.
7
Research Integrity Attitudes and Behaviors are Difficult to alter: Results from a ten Year Follow-up Study in Norway.研究诚信态度和行为难以改变:来自挪威十年随访研究的结果。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2023 Feb-Apr;18(1-2):50-57. doi: 10.1177/15562646221150032. Epub 2023 Jan 5.
8
How do Chinese universities address research integrity and misconduct? A review of university documents.中国高校如何应对研究诚信和不当行为?对高校文件的审查。
Dev World Bioeth. 2019 Jun;19(2):64-75. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12231. Epub 2019 May 15.
9
Perceptions on the role of research integrity officers in French medical schools.对法国医学院校研究诚信官员角色的看法。
Account Res. 2024 Oct;31(7):826-846. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2173070. Epub 2023 Feb 14.
10
Misconduct Within the "Four Walls": Does Organizational Justice Matter in Explaining Prison Officers' Misconduct and Job Stress?“围墙内”的不当行为:组织公正对于解释狱警的不当行为和工作压力是否重要?
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2019 Feb;63(2):289-308. doi: 10.1177/0306624X18780941. Epub 2018 Jun 8.

引用本文的文献

1
Indirect feedback as a tool for identifying academic misconduct: a cross-sectional multicentral study among medical students.间接反馈作为识别学术不端行为的工具:一项针对医学生的横断面多中心研究。
BMC Med Educ. 2025 Jul 1;25(1):897. doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07444-9.
2
Magnitude and Factors Associated with Research Misconduct at a Public University in Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Survey.埃塞俄比亚一所公立大学研究不端行为的规模及相关因素:一项横断面调查。
F1000Res. 2025 Feb 20;14:111. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.159997.2. eCollection 2025.

本文引用的文献

1
1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility.1500名科学家揭开了可重复性的盖子。
Nature. 2016 May 26;533(7604):452-4. doi: 10.1038/533452a.
2
Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication.预防科研与出版领域不当行为并促进诚信的干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 4;4(4):MR000038. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000038.pub2.
3
Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity.不当行为政策、学术文化和职业阶段,而非性别或发表压力,影响科学诚信。
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 17;10(6):e0127556. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127556. eCollection 2015.
4
Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists.医学科学家的发表压力与科研不端行为
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014 Dec;9(5):64-71. doi: 10.1177/1556264614552421. Epub 2014 Oct 2.
5
The slippery slope: how small ethical transgressions pave the way for larger future transgressions.滑坡谬误:微小的道德越轨行为如何为更大的未来越轨行为铺平道路。
J Appl Psychol. 2015 Jan;100(1):114-27. doi: 10.1037/a0036950. Epub 2014 May 26.
6
Understanding research misconduct: a comparative analysis of 120 cases of professional wrongdoing.理解研究不端行为:120 个专业不当行为案例的比较分析。
Account Res. 2013;20(5-6):320-38. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.822248.
7
Policies and initiatives aimed at addressing research misconduct in high-income countries.针对高收入国家研究不端行为的政策和举措。
PLoS Med. 2013;10(3):e1001406. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001406. Epub 2013 Mar 26.
8
The importance of organizational justice in ensuring research integrity.组织公正对于确保研究诚信的重要性。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010 Sep;5(3):67-83. doi: 10.1525/jer.2010.5.3.67.
9
A Meta-Analysis of Ethics Instruction Effectiveness in the Sciences.科学领域伦理教育有效性的荟萃分析。
Ethics Behav. 2009 Sep 1;19(5):379-402. doi: 10.1080/10508420903035380.
10
How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data.有多少科学家伪造和篡改研究数据?对调查数据的系统评价和荟萃分析。
PLoS One. 2009 May 29;4(5):e5738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.

关于研究诚信官员对与研究不当行为实例相关的研究实践看法的调查研究。

Survey study of research integrity officers' perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct.

作者信息

Kalichman Michael

机构信息

Research Ethics Program, UC San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0612, USA.

出版信息

Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020 Dec 11;5(1):17. doi: 10.1186/s41073-020-00103-1.

DOI:10.1186/s41073-020-00103-1
PMID:33303039
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7731550/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Research on research integrity has tended to focus on frequency of research misconduct and factors that might induce someone to commit research misconduct. A definitive answer to the first question has been elusive, but it remains clear that any research misconduct is too much. Answers to the second question are so diverse, it might be productive to ask a different question: What about how research is done allows research misconduct to occur?

METHODS

With that question in mind, research integrity officers (RIOs) of the 62 members of the American Association of Universities were invited to complete a brief survey about their most recent instance of a finding of research misconduct. Respondents were asked whether one or more good practices of research (e.g., openness and transparency, keeping good research records) were present in their case of research misconduct.

RESULTS

Twenty-four (24) of the respondents (39% response rate) indicated they had dealt with at least one finding of research misconduct and answered the survey questions. Over half of these RIOs reported that their case of research misconduct had occurred in an environment in which at least nine of the ten listed good practices of research were deficient.

CONCLUSIONS

These results are not evidence for a causal effect of poor practices, but it is arguable that committing research misconduct would be more difficult if not impossible in research environments adhering to good practices of research.

摘要

背景

关于研究诚信的研究往往侧重于研究不当行为的频率以及可能诱使某人实施研究不当行为的因素。对于第一个问题,一直没有确切的答案,但有一点仍然很清楚,即任何研究不当行为都太多了。对于第二个问题的答案多种多样,或许提出一个不同的问题会更有成效:研究过程中的哪些方面使得研究不当行为得以发生?

方法

考虑到这个问题,美国大学协会62个成员机构的研究诚信官员被邀请完成一项关于他们最近一次研究不当行为调查结果的简短调查。受访者被问及在他们的研究不当行为案例中是否存在一项或多项良好的研究实践(例如,开放性和透明度、保存良好的研究记录)。

结果

24名(回复率39%)受访者表示他们至少处理过一项研究不当行为调查结果并回答了调查问题。超过半数的这些研究诚信官员报告称,他们的研究不当行为案例发生在一种环境中,在这种环境里,所列出的十项良好研究实践中至少有九项存在不足。

结论

这些结果并非表明不良实践存在因果效应的证据,但可以说,在坚持良好研究实践的研究环境中,实施研究不当行为即便不是不可能,也会更加困难。