Literature DB >> 25275621

Research misconduct definitions adopted by U.S. research institutions.

David B Resnik1, Talicia Neal, Austin Raymond, Grace E Kissling.   

Abstract

In 2000, the U.S. federal government adopted a uniform definition of research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP), which became effective in 2001. Institutions must apply this definition of misconduct to federally-funded research to receive funding. While institutions are free to adopt definitions of misconduct that go beyond the federal standard, it is not known how many do. We analyzed misconduct policies from 183 U.S. research institutions and coded them according to thirteen different types of behavior mentioned in the misconduct definition. We also obtained data on the institution's total research funding and public vs. private status, and the year it adopted the definition. We found that more than half (59%) of the institutions in our sample had misconduct policies that went beyond the federal standard. Other than FFP, the most common behaviors included in definitions were "other serious deviations" (45.4%), "significant or material violations of regulations" (23.0%), "misuse of confidential information" (15.8%), "misconduct related to misconduct" (14.8%), "unethical authorship other than plagiarism" (14.2%), "other deception involving data manipulation" (13.1%), and "misappropriation of property/theft" (10.4%). Significantly more definitions adopted in 2001 or later went beyond the federal standard than those adopted before 2001 (73.2% vs. 26.8%), and significantly more definitions adopted by institutions in the lower quartile of total research funding went beyond the federal standard than those adopted by institutions in the upper quartiles. Public vs. private status was not significantly associated with going beyond the federal standard.

Entities:  

Keywords:  definitions; ethics; integrity; policies; research misconduct

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25275621      PMCID: PMC4269469          DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2014.891943

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


  6 in total

1.  Confronting misconduct in science in the 1980s and 1990s: what has and has not been accomplished?

Authors:  Nicholas H Steneck
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Research universities and scientific misconduct -- history, policies, and the future.

Authors:  Nicholas H Steneck
Journal:  J Higher Educ       Date:  1994 May-Jun

3.  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

4.  Scientists behaving badly.

Authors:  Brian C Martinson; Melissa S Anderson; Raymond de Vries
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-06-09       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Evaluating research misconduct policies at major research universities: a pilot study.

Authors:  Rebecca Ann Lind
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2005 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.622

Review 6.  How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data.

Authors:  Daniele Fanelli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total
  9 in total

1.  Commentary: Legacy of the Commission on Research Integrity.

Authors:  Barbara K Redman
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-01-13       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 2.  Scientific integrity issues in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: Improving research reproducibility, credibility, and transparency.

Authors:  Christopher A Mebane; John P Sumpter; Anne Fairbrother; Thomas P Augspurger; Timothy J Canfield; William L Goodfellow; Patrick D Guiney; Anne LeHuray; Lorraine Maltby; David B Mayfield; Michael J McLaughlin; Lisa S Ortego; Tamar Schlekat; Richard P Scroggins; Tim A Verslycke
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 2.992

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 international study of research misconduct policies.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Lisa M Rasmussen; Grace E Kissling
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.622

5.  Assessment of the Operational Characteristics of Research Ethics Committees in Ghana.

Authors:  Samuel Asiedu Owusu; Grace Addison; Barbara Redman; Lisa Kearns; Paul Amuna; Amos Laar
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  Publication Ethics.

Authors:  Kirtisudha Mishra; Aashima Dabas
Journal:  Indian Pediatr       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 3.839

7.  Design, implementation, and evaluation of PINDAR, a novel short program on GCP for academic medical center principal investigators conducting human subject research.

Authors:  Claudia S Plottel; Lois Mannon; Frederick G More; Stuart D Katz; Judith S Hochman
Journal:  J Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2018-12

8.  Ethical Orientation and Research Misconduct Among Business Researchers Under the Condition of Autonomy and Competition.

Authors:  Matthias Fink; Johannes Gartner; Rainer Harms; Isabella Hatak
Journal:  J Bus Ethics       Date:  2022-01-29

9.  Critical evaluation of the guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity and of their application.

Authors:  Liisa Räsänen; Erja Moore
Journal:  Res Integr Peer Rev       Date:  2016-10-17
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.