Suppr超能文献

与科研不端行为行政处分严重程度相关的因素:对1993年至2023年科研诚信办公室案例摘要的分析

Factors related to the severity of research misconduct administrative actions: An analysis of office of research integrity case summaries from 1993 to 2023.

作者信息

Long Brandon, Laux Savannah, Lemon Benjamin, Guarente Alexa, Davis Mark, Casadevall Arturo, Fang Ferric, Shi Min, Resnik David B

机构信息

Philosophy, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, KY, USA.

Philosophy, Mount Saint Mary College, Newburgh, NY, USA.

出版信息

Account Res. 2025 Apr;32(3):417-438. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2287046. Epub 2023 Nov 30.

Abstract

We extracted, coded, and analyzed data from 343 Office of Research Integrity (ORI) case summaries published in the and other venues from May 1993 to July 2023 to test hypotheses concerning the relationship between the severity of ORI administrative actions and various demographic and institutional factors. We found that factors indicative of the severity of the respondent's misconduct or a pattern of misbehavior were associated with the severity of ORI administrative actions. Being required by ORI to retract or correct publications and aggravating factors, such as interfering with an investigation, were both positively associated with receiving a funding debarment and with receiving an administrative action longer than three years. Admitting one's guilt and being found to have committed plagiarism (only) were negatively associated with receiving a funding debarment but were neither positively nor negatively associated with receiving an administrative action longer than three years. Other factors, such as the respondent's race/ethnicity, gender, academic position, administrative position, or their institution's NIH funding level or extramural vs. intramural or foreign vs. US status, were neither positively nor negatively associated with the severity of administrative actions. Overall, our findings suggest that ORI has acted fairly when imposing administrative actions on respondents and has followed DHHS guidelines.

摘要

我们从1993年5月至2023年7月在[具体刊物]及其他渠道发表的343份研究诚信办公室(ORI)案例摘要中提取、编码并分析了数据,以检验有关ORI行政行动的严厉程度与各种人口统计学和机构因素之间关系的假设。我们发现,表明受访者不当行为或不当行为模式严重程度的因素与ORI行政行动的严厉程度相关。被ORI要求撤回或更正出版物以及诸如干扰调查等加重情节,均与被禁止获得资助以及受到超过三年的行政行动呈正相关。承认有罪且仅被认定犯有抄袭行为与被禁止获得资助呈负相关,但与受到超过三年的行政行动既无正相关也无负相关。其他因素,如受访者的种族/民族、性别、学术职位、行政职位,或其所在机构的国立卫生研究院(NIH)资助水平、校外与校内或国外与美国的地位,与行政行动的严厉程度既无正相关也无负相关。总体而言,我们的研究结果表明,ORI在对受访者实施行政行动时行事公平,并遵循了美国卫生与公众服务部(DHHS)的指导方针。

相似文献

3
Research misconduct, NSF v NIH: Its nature and prevalence and the impact of their respective methods of investigation and adjudication.
Account Res. 2019 Aug;26(6):369-378. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2019.1646644. Epub 2019 Aug 20.
5
Anonymity and pseudonymity in whistleblowing to the U.S. Office of Research Integrity.
Acad Med. 1998 May;73(5):467-72. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199805000-00009.
6
Scientific misconduct and research integrity for the bench scientist.
Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 2000 Sep;224(4):220-30. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1373.2000.22425.x.
8
Life After Research Misconduct.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2017 Feb;12(1):26-32. doi: 10.1177/1556264616682568. Epub 2016 Dec 14.
10
Complainant issues in research misconduct: the office of research integrity experience.
Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2006 Jul;231(7):1264-70. doi: 10.1177/153537020623100712.

引用本文的文献

1
Scientific misconduct responsibility attribution: An empirical study on byline position and team identity in Chinese medical papers.
PLoS One. 2024 Aug 5;19(8):e0308377. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308377. eCollection 2024.

本文引用的文献

1
Why and how to incorporate issues of race/ethnicity and gender in research integrity education.
Account Res. 2024 Oct;31(7):944-967. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2239145. Epub 2023 Jul 31.
2
Racial inequalities in journals highlighted in giant study.
Nature. 2023 Apr 28. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-01457-4.
3
Wrestling with Social and Behavioral Genomics: Risks, Potential Benefits, and Ethical Responsibility.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2023 Mar;53 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S2-S49. doi: 10.1002/hast.1477.
4
Honoring Asian diversity by collecting Asian subpopulation data in health research.
Res Nurs Health. 2022 Jun;45(3):265-269. doi: 10.1002/nur.22229. Epub 2022 Apr 24.
6
The gendered nature of authorship.
Sci Adv. 2021 Sep 3;7(36):eabe4639. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abe4639. Epub 2021 Sep 1.
7
Updated Guidance on the Reporting of Race and Ethnicity in Medical and Science Journals.
JAMA. 2021 Aug 17;326(7):621-627. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.13304.
8
The US biological sciences faculty gap in Asian representation.
J Clin Invest. 2021 Jul 1;131(13). doi: 10.1172/JCI151581.
9
Reckoning with Asian America.
Science. 2021 Apr 2;372(6537):8. doi: 10.1126/science.abi6877. Epub 2021 Mar 25.
10
Revising the a Priori Hypothesis: Systemic Racism Has Penetrated Scientific Funding.
Cell. 2020 Oct 29;183(3):576-579. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.026.

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