• 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

驾驭科学体系:研究诚信与学术生存策略。

Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies.

机构信息

Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Sci Eng Ethics. 2024 Apr 3;30(2):12. doi: 10.1007/s11948-024-00467-3.

DOI:10.1007/s11948-024-00467-3
PMID:38568341
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10991043/
Abstract

Research Integrity (RI) is high on the agenda of both institutions and science policy. The European Union as well as national ministries of science have launched ambitious initiatives to combat misconduct and breaches of research integrity. Often, such initiatives entail attempts to regulate scientific behavior through guidelines that institutions and academic communities can use to more easily identify and deal with cases of misconduct. Rather than framing misconduct as a result of an information deficit, we instead conceptualize Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) as attempts by researchers to reconcile epistemic and social forms of uncertainty in knowledge production. Drawing on previous literature, we define epistemic uncertainty as the inherent intellectual unpredictability of scientific inquiry, while social uncertainty arises from the human-made conditions for scientific work. Our core argument-developed on the basis of 30 focus group interviews with researchers across different fields and European countries-is that breaches of research integrity can be understood as attempts to loosen overly tight coupling between the two forms of uncertainty. Our analytical approach is not meant to relativize or excuse misconduct, but rather to offer a more fine-grained perspective on what exactly it is that researchers want to accomplish by engaging in it. Based on the analysis, we conclude by proposing some concrete ways in which institutions and academic communities could try to reconcile epistemic and social uncertainties on a more collective level, thereby reducing incentives for researchers to engage in misconduct.

摘要

研究诚信(RI)是机构和科学政策的重中之重。欧盟以及各国科学部门已经发起了雄心勃勃的举措,以打击不当行为和违反研究诚信的行为。这些举措通常试图通过机构和学术社区可以用来更轻松地识别和处理不当行为的准则来规范科学行为。我们没有将不当行为视为信息不足的结果,而是将可疑研究实践(QRPs)概念化为研究人员试图调和知识生产中认识和社会形式的不确定性。根据以往的文献,我们将认识上的不确定性定义为科学探究固有的智力不可预测性,而社会不确定性则源于科学工作的人为条件。我们的核心论点是基于对来自不同领域和欧洲国家的 30 个焦点小组访谈得出的,即研究诚信的违反可以被理解为试图放松两种不确定性之间过于紧密的耦合。我们的分析方法并不是要使不当行为相对化或原谅,而是要更细致地了解研究人员通过从事不当行为想要实现的目标。基于分析,我们最后提出了一些具体的方法,机构和学术社区可以尝试在更集体的层面上调和认识和社会不确定性,从而减少研究人员从事不当行为的动机。

相似文献

1
Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies.驾驭科学体系:研究诚信与学术生存策略。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2024 Apr 3;30(2):12. doi: 10.1007/s11948-024-00467-3.
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
Evidence-based toxicology: a comprehensive framework for causation.循证毒理学:因果关系的综合框架。
Hum Exp Toxicol. 2005 Apr;24(4):161-201. doi: 10.1191/0960327105ht517oa.
4
"Just Ask What Support We Need": Autistic Adults' Feedback on Social Skills Training.“只需询问我们需要什么支持”:成年自闭症患者对社交技能培训的反馈
Autism Adulthood. 2025 May 28;7(3):283-292. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0136. eCollection 2025 Jun.
5
Stigma Management Strategies of Autistic Social Media Users.自闭症社交媒体用户的污名管理策略
Autism Adulthood. 2025 May 28;7(3):273-282. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0095. eCollection 2025 Jun.
6
The use of Open Dialogue in Trauma Informed Care services for mental health consumers and their family networks: A scoping review.创伤知情护理服务中使用开放对话模式为心理健康消费者及其家庭网络提供服务:范围综述。
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2024 Aug;31(4):681-698. doi: 10.1111/jpm.13023. Epub 2024 Jan 17.
7
Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.从临床试验参与者中获取不良反应数据。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2.
8
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.心理健康问题的居家治疗:一项系统综述
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(15):1-139. doi: 10.3310/hta5150.
9
Perceptions and experiences of the prevention, detection, and management of postpartum haemorrhage: a qualitative evidence synthesis.预防、检测和管理产后出血的认知和经验:定性证据综合。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Nov 27;11(11):CD013795. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013795.pub2.
10
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in non-small-cell lung cancer.对紫杉醇、多西他赛、吉西他滨和长春瑞滨在非小细胞肺癌中的临床疗效和成本效益进行的快速系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(32):1-195. doi: 10.3310/hta5320.

本文引用的文献

1
A Significant Problem.一个重大问题。
Sci Am. 2019 Oct 1;321(4):62. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1019-62.
2
Important Topics for Fostering Research Integrity by Research Performing and Research Funding Organizations: A Delphi Consensus Study.促进研究执行机构和研究资助机构研究诚信的重要议题:德尔菲共识研究。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Jul 9;27(4):47. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00322-9.
3
Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research.探索灰色地带:各主要研究领域可疑研究行为(QRPs)的异同
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Jun 16;27(4):40. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00310-z.
4
Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective.拓展研究诚信:文化实践视角。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2021 Feb 9;27(1):10. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00291-z.
5
Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to walk.研究诚信:从空谈走向行动的九种方法。
Nature. 2020 Oct;586(7829):358-360. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02847-8.
6
The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity.《评估研究人员的香港原则:促进研究诚信》
PLoS Biol. 2020 Jul 16;18(7):e3000737. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737. eCollection 2020 Jul.
7
Personal Motivations and Systemic Incentives: Scientists on Questionable Research Practices.个人动机与制度激励:有问题研究行为的科学家
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Jun;26(3):1531-1547. doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00182-9. Epub 2020 Jan 24.
8
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.
9
RePAIR consensus guidelines: Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record.《研究记录保护与诚信(RePAIR)共识指南:出版商、机构、组织及研究人员在保护研究记录完整性方面的职责》
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018 Dec 19;3:15. doi: 10.1186/s41073-018-0055-1. eCollection 2018.
10
Grounds for Ambiguity: Justifiable Bases for Engaging in Questionable Research Practices.歧义的理由:从事可疑研究实践的合理依据。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Oct;25(5):1321-1337. doi: 10.1007/s11948-018-0065-x. Epub 2018 Sep 26.