Literature DB >> 22268506

Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement.

David B Resnik1, C Neal Stewart.   

Abstract

Researchers sometimes mistakenly accuse their peers of misconduct. It is important to distinguish between misconduct and honest error or a difference of scientific opinion to prevent unnecessary and time-consuming misconduct proceedings, protect scientists from harm, and avoid deterring researchers from using novel methods or proposing controversial hypotheses. While it is obvious to many researchers that misconduct is different from a scientific disagreement or simply an inadvertent mistake in methods, analysis or misinterpretation of data, applying this distinction to real cases is sometimes not easy. Because the line between misconduct and honest error or a scientific dispute is often unclear, research organizations and institutions should distinguish between misconduct and honest error and scientific disagreement in their policies and practices. These distinctions should also be explained during educational sessions on the responsible conduct of research and in the mentoring process. When researchers wrongfully accuse their peers of misconduct, it is important to help them understand the distinction between misconduct and honest error and differences of scientific judgment or opinion, pinpoint the source of disagreement, and identify the relevant scientific norms. They can be encouraged to settle the dispute through collegial discussion and dialogue, rather than a misconduct allegation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22268506      PMCID: PMC3443861          DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2012.650948

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Account Res        ISSN: 0898-9621            Impact factor:   2.622


  8 in total

1.  From Baltimore to Bell Labs: reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2003 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.622

2.  Statistics spark dismissal suit.

Authors:  Emma Marris
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-09-16       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Statistical methods for efficiency adjusted real-time PCR quantification.

Authors:  Joshua S Yuan; Donglin Wang; C Neal Stewart
Journal:  Biotechnol J       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.677

4.  Impugning the integrity of medical science: the adverse effects of industry influence.

Authors:  Catherine D DeAngelis; Phil B Fontanarosa
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-04-16       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Differing opinion, not misconduct.

Authors:  Steven B Abramson
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-02-24       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Reporting mortality findings in trials of rofecoxib for Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment: a case study based on documents from rofecoxib litigation.

Authors:  Bruce M Psaty; Richard A Kronmal
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-04-16       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Intention-to-treat concept: A review.

Authors:  Sandeep K Gupta
Journal:  Perspect Clin Res       Date:  2011-07

8.  Statistical analysis of real-time PCR data.

Authors:  Joshua S Yuan; Ann Reed; Feng Chen; C Neal Stewart
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2006-02-22       Impact factor: 3.169

  8 in total
  6 in total

1.  The Swedish Research Council's definition of 'scientific misconduct': a critique.

Authors:  Håkan Salwén
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Images and imagination: the role of figures in plant cell and molecular biology publications.

Authors:  C Neal Stewart
Journal:  Plant Cell Rep       Date:  2014-02-15       Impact factor: 4.570

3.  Data-Intensive Science and Research Integrity.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Kevin C Elliott; Patricia A Soranno; Elise M Smith
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2017-05-08       Impact factor: 2.622

4.  An Overview of Scientific Reproducibility: Consideration of Relevant Issues for Behavior Science/Analysis.

Authors:  Sean Laraway; Susan Snycerski; Sean Pradhan; Bradley E Huitema
Journal:  Perspect Behav Sci       Date:  2019-03-22

5.  Don't fall in common science pitfall!

Authors:  Khaled Moustafa
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2014-10-10       Impact factor: 5.753

6.  Research ethics in inter- and multi-disciplinary teams: Differences in disciplinary interpretations.

Authors:  Ambika Mathur; Sharon F Lean; Caroline Maun; Natalie Walker; Annmarie Cano; Mary E Wood
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.