Literature DB >> 25991087

Reducing Ethical Hazards in Knowledge Production.

Alan Cottey1.   

Abstract

This article discusses the ethics of knowledge production (KP) from a cultural point of view, in contrast with the more usual emphasis on the ethical issues facing individuals involved in KP. Here, the emphasis is on the cultural environment within which individuals, groups and institutions perform KP. A principal purpose is to suggest ways in which reliable scientific knowledge could be produced more efficiently. The distinction between ethical hazard and (un)ethical behaviour is noted. Ethical hazards cannot be eliminated but they can be reduced if the cultural ambience is suitable. The main suggestions for reducing ethical hazards in KP relate to the review process. It is argued that some defects of the current, largely anonymous, review process could be ameliorated by a process of comprehensive, open and ongoing review (COOR). This includes partial professionalisation of the work of reviewing. Review at several stages is a vital part of the long filtering that incorporates some claims into the canon of reliable knowledge. The review process would be an acknowledged and explicit part of KP--a respected, public and rewarded activity. COOR would be expensive but cost-effective. The costs should be built explicitly into research culture. Finally, the considerations about a more 'KP friendly' culture lead to advocacy of a 'long-term, short-term' synthesis; that is, of the synthesis of long-term vision, such as a more cooperative and less competitive culture, with incremental changes which may be implemented in the short term.

Keywords:  Comprehensive review; Ethical hazards; Ethos of science; Knowledge production; Openness; Peer review

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25991087     DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9651-3

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


  8 in total

1.  From the secrets of nature to public knowledge: the origins of the concept of openness in science.

Authors:  W Eamon
Journal:  Minerva       Date:  1985

2.  Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review.

Authors:  Daniel M Herron
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-02-21       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Going public: good scientific conduct.

Authors:  Gitte Meyer; Peter Sandøe
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2010-11-19       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Sociology. Scientific misconduct: do the punishments fit the crime?

Authors:  Barbara K Redman; Jon F Merz
Journal:  Science       Date:  2008-08-08       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Who's afraid of peer review?

Authors:  John Bohannon
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Fledgling space industry resolute after fatal crash.

Authors:  Alexandra Witze
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Extending the Mertonian Norms: Scientists' Subscription to Norms of Research.

Authors:  Melissa S Anderson; Emily A Ronning; Raymond Devries; Brian C Martinson
Journal:  J Higher Educ       Date:  2010-05-01

8.  Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Susan van Rooyen; Tony Delamothe; Stephen J W Evans
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-11-16
  8 in total
  2 in total

1.  Publishing, Objectivity, and Prestige.

Authors:  Khaled Moustafa
Journal:  J Microbiol Biol Educ       Date:  2016-12-02

2.  Suggestions to Improve the Comprehensibility of Current Definitions of Scientific Authorship for International Authors.

Authors:  Mohammad Hosseini; Luca Consoli; H A E Zwart; Mariette A van den Hoven
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 3.525

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.