Literature DB >> 24337932

Standards of scientific conduct: are there any?

Michael Kalichman1, Monica Sweet, Dena Plemmons.   

Abstract

The practice of research is full of ethical challenges, many of which might be addressed through the teaching of responsible conduct of research (RCR). Although such training is increasingly required, there is no clear consensus about either the goals or content of an RCR curriculum. The present study was designed to assess community standards in three domains of research practice: authorship, collaboration, and data management. A survey, developed through advice from content matter experts, focus groups, and interviews, was distributed in November 2010 to U.S. faculty from 50 graduate programs for each of four different disciplines: microbiology, neuroscience, nursing, and psychology. The survey addressed practices and perceived standards, as well as perceptions about teaching and learning. Over 1,300 responses (response rate of 21 %) yielded statistically significant differences in responses to nearly all questions. However the magnitude of these differences was typically small, leaving little reason to argue for community consensus on standards. For nearly all questions asked, the clear finding was that there was nothing approaching consensus. These results may be useful not so much to teach what the standards are, but to increase student awareness of the diversity of those standards in reported practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24337932      PMCID: PMC4057364          DOI: 10.1007/s11948-013-9500-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  10 in total

1.  Phs proposes a new policy on instruction in the responsible conduct of research.

Authors:  M Shalev
Journal:  Lab Anim (NY)       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 12.625

2.  Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey.

Authors:  S Keeter; C Miller; A Kohut; R M Groves; S Presser
Journal:  Public Opin Q       Date:  2000

3.  Encouraging accountability in research: a pilot assessment of training efforts.

Authors:  Anna C Mastroianni; Jeffrey P Kahn
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.622

4.  Assessing the educational literature in the responsible conduct of research for core content.

Authors:  Elizabeth Heitman; Ruth Ellen Bulger
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2005 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.622

5.  A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics.

Authors:  M W Kalichman; P J Friedman
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 6.893

6.  Reported goals for responsible conduct of research courses.

Authors:  Michael W Kalichman; Dena K Plemmons
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 6.893

7.  The history, purpose, and future of instruction in the responsible conduct of research.

Authors:  Nicholas H Steneck; Ruth Ellen Bulger
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 6.893

8.  What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists' misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists.

Authors:  Melissa S Anderson; Aaron S Horn; Kelly R Risbey; Emily A Ronning; Raymond De Vries; Brian C Martinson
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 6.893

9.  Teaching and Assessing the Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Consensus Panel Report.

Authors:  James M Dubois; Jeffrey M Dueker
Journal:  J Res Adm       Date:  2009

10.  A Meta-Analysis of Ethics Instruction Effectiveness in the Sciences.

Authors:  Alison L Antes; Stephen T Murphy; Ethan P Waples; Michael D Mumford; Ryan P Brown; Shane Connelly; Lynn D Devenport
Journal:  Ethics Behav       Date:  2009-09-01
  10 in total
  6 in total

1.  Standards of Scientific Conduct: Disciplinary Differences.

Authors:  Michael Kalichman; Monica Sweet; Dena Plemmons
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-09-26       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Standards, double standards and no standards.

Authors:  Beuy Joob; Viroj Wiwanitkit
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Establishing good collaborative research practices in the responsible conduct of research in nursing science.

Authors:  Connie M Ulrich; Gwenyth R Wallen; Naixue Cui; Jesse Chittams; Monica Sweet; Dena Plemmons
Journal:  Nurs Outlook       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 3.250

Review 4.  Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication.

Authors:  Ana Marusic; Elizabeth Wager; Ana Utrobicic; Hannah R Rothstein; Dario Sambunjak
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-04-04

5.  Authorship Issues and Conflict in the U.S. Academic Chemical Community.

Authors:  Jeffrey I Seeman; Mark C House
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.622

6.  A randomized trial of a lab-embedded discourse intervention to improve research ethics.

Authors:  Dena K Plemmons; Erica N Baranski; Kyle Harp; David D Lo; Courtney K Soderberg; Timothy M Errington; Brian A Nosek; Kevin M Esterling
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 11.205

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.