• 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
Can research integrity prevail in the market? Lessons from commissioned research organizations.市场环境下能否坚持研究诚信?委托型研究组织的经验教训。
Account Res. 2022 Oct;29(7):415-441. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2021.1937603. Epub 2021 Jun 9.
2
Navigating the Murky Waters of Conflict of Interest: Searching for the Middle Path.在利益冲突的浑水中探寻方向:寻找中间道路。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016 Feb;11(1):67-71. doi: 10.1177/1556264616637962.
3
Factors influencing the promotion and implementation of research integrity in research performing and research funding organizations: A scoping review.影响研究执行和研究资助组织内研究诚信推广和实施的因素:范围综述。
Account Res. 2023 Dec;30(8):633-671. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2022.2073819. Epub 2022 Jun 17.
4
Competition Among Mental Health Organizations: Environmental Drivers and Strategic Responses.心理健康组织之间的竞争:环境驱动因素与战略应对。
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2021 May;48(3):393-407. doi: 10.1007/s10488-020-01079-2.
5
How do researchers acquire and develop notions of research integrity? A qualitative study among biomedical researchers in Switzerland.研究人员如何获得和发展研究诚信观念?瑞士生物医学研究人员的定性研究。
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Oct 16;20(1):72. doi: 10.1186/s12910-019-0410-x.
6
Relationship between early-career collaboration among researchers and future funding success in Japanese academia.研究者早期合作与日本学术界未来资金成功之间的关系。
PLoS One. 2022 Nov 11;17(11):e0277621. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277621. eCollection 2022.
7
Primary Care Research Team Assessment (PCRTA): development and evaluation.基层医疗研究团队评估(PCRTA):开发与评估
Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract. 2002 Feb(81):iii-vi, 1-72.
8
Market power in the United States red meatpacking industry.美国红肉包装行业的市场支配力。
Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract. 2003 Jul;19(2):519-44. doi: 10.1016/s0749-0720(03)00030-6.
9
Guidelines, editors, pharma and the biological paradigm shift.指南、编辑、制药行业与生物学范式转变
Mens Sana Monogr. 2007 Jan;5(1):27-30. doi: 10.4103/0973-1229.32176.
10
Integrating Integrity: The Organizational Translation of Policies on Research Integrity.整合诚信:研究诚信政策的组织翻译。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Dec;26(6):3167-3182. doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00262-w. Epub 2020 Aug 25.

引用本文的文献

1
How governments influence public health research: a scoping review.政府如何影响公共卫生研究:一项范围综述
Health Promot Int. 2025 Jul 1;40(4). doi: 10.1093/heapro/daaf097.

本文引用的文献

1
What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity.研究机构可以采取哪些措施来培养研究诚信
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Aug;26(4):2363-2369. doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00178-5. Epub 2020 Jan 21.
2
New Classification of Research Misconduct from the Viewpoint of Truth, Trust, and Risk.从真理、信任和风险的角度对科研不端行为进行新的分类。
Account Res. 2018 Oct-Nov;25(7-8):404-408. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2018.1548283.
3
The Quest for Clarity in Research Integrity: A Conceptual Schema.追求研究诚信的清晰性:概念框架。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Aug;25(4):1085-1093. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0052-2. Epub 2018 Mar 28.
4
Testing Hypotheses on Risk Factors for Scientific Misconduct via Matched-Control Analysis of Papers Containing Problematic Image Duplications.通过对包含有问题图像重复的论文进行匹配对照分析来检验科研不端行为风险因素的假设。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Jun;25(3):771-789. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0023-7. Epub 2018 Feb 19.
5
Industry sponsorship and research outcome.行业赞助与研究成果。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 16;2(2):MR000033. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3.
6
Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition.21世纪的学术研究:在不当激励和过度竞争环境下保持科学诚信
Environ Eng Sci. 2017 Jan 1;34(1):51-61. doi: 10.1089/ees.2016.0223.
7
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.
8
Personality Traits Are Associated with Research Misbehavior in Dutch Scientists: A Cross-Sectional Study.人格特质与荷兰科学家的研究不当行为相关:一项横断面研究。
PLoS One. 2016 Sep 29;11(9):e0163251. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163251. eCollection 2016.
9
Research integrity in China.中国的科研诚信。
Science. 2013 Nov 29;342(6162):1019. doi: 10.1126/science.1247700.
10
United States private-sector physicians and pharmaceutical contract research: a qualitative study.美国私营部门医生和制药合同研究机构:一项定性研究。
PLoS Med. 2012;9(7):e1001271. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001271. Epub 2012 Jul 24.

市场环境下能否坚持研究诚信?委托型研究组织的经验教训。

Can research integrity prevail in the market? Lessons from commissioned research organizations.

机构信息

Work Research Institute, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.

出版信息

Account Res. 2022 Oct;29(7):415-441. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2021.1937603. Epub 2021 Jun 9.

DOI:10.1080/08989621.2021.1937603
PMID:34080489
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9466356/
Abstract

Competition and exposure to market forces can make it difficult for researchers to conduct their work with integrity. Some research organizations must acquire most of their funding through commissioned research, providing research services for paying clients. Studying such organizations can give insight into how researchers try, and sometimes fail, to balance academic norms with the need to secure funding. Based on interviews with social scientists in commissioned research organizations, this study shows how clients can exert an undue influence on the research process and how competition for funding can make it difficult to live up to academic quality standards. However, it also shows how commissioned research can be a source of identity and motivation. It involves a high degree of impact and access to good data, as clients commission research projects because they want knowledge to solve specific problems. Moreover, the participants discussed how they and the organizations where they worked learned from their experiences how to counteract the negative aspects of competition.

摘要

竞争和市场力量的影响可能使研究人员难以诚信地开展工作。一些研究机构必须通过委托研究获得大部分资金,为付费客户提供研究服务。研究这些组织可以深入了解研究人员如何努力(有时失败)在平衡学术规范与获得资金的需求之间取得平衡。本研究基于对委托研究机构的社会科学家的访谈,展示了客户如何对研究过程施加不当影响,以及资金竞争如何使得难以达到学术质量标准。然而,它也展示了委托研究如何成为身份认同和动力的源泉。它涉及到高度的影响力和获取优质数据的机会,因为客户委托研究项目是因为他们希望通过知识解决具体问题。此外,参与者讨论了他们和他们所在的组织如何从经验中学习,以克服竞争的负面影响。