Literature DB >> 26273897

Scientific Misconduct.

Charles Gross1.   

Abstract

Scientific misconduct has been defined as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Scientific misconduct has occurred throughout the history of science. The US government began to take systematic interest in such misconduct in the 1980s. Since then, a number of studies have examined how frequently individual scientists have observed scientific misconduct or were involved in it. Although the studies vary considerably in their methodology and in the nature and size of their samples, in most studies at least 10% of the scientists sampled reported having observed scientific misconduct. In addition to studies of the incidence of scientific misconduct, this review considers the recent increase in paper retractions, the role of social media in scientific ethics, several instructional examples of egregious scientific misconduct, and potential methods to reduce research misconduct.

Keywords:  fabrication; falsification; plagiarism; scientific misconduct

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26273897     DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033437

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol        ISSN: 0066-4308            Impact factor:   24.137


  11 in total

1.  Scientific Ethics: A New Approach.

Authors:  Marcello Menapace
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Changing paradigm in the scientific publication process: Are we encouraging Science or Pseudoscience? Urgent need for introspection and self regulation.

Authors:  Velu Nair
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2017-04-06

3.  A Reflective Account of a Research Ethics Course for an Interdisciplinary Cohort of Graduate Students.

Authors:  Bor Luen Tang; Joan Siew Ching Lee
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 4.  Evidence appraisal: a scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda.

Authors:  Andrew Goldstein; Eric Venker; Chunhua Weng
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 5.  The peer review process.

Authors:  Dmitry Tumin; Joseph Drew Tobias
Journal:  Saudi J Anaesth       Date:  2019-04

6.  Post retraction citations in context: a case study.

Authors:  Judit Bar-Ilan; Gali Halevi
Journal:  Scientometrics       Date:  2017-03-03       Impact factor: 3.238

7.  The emergence of a field: a network analysis of research on peer review.

Authors:  Vladimir Batagelj; Anuška Ferligoj; Flaminio Squazzoni
Journal:  Scientometrics       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 3.238

8.  Questionable research practices may have little effect on replicability.

Authors:  Rolf Ulrich; Jeff Miller
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 8.140

9.  Street research market: dealing with scientific misconduct in Iran.

Authors:  Homayoun Sadeghi-Bazargani; Leila Nikniaz; Hamid Reza Yousefi Nodeh
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2020-08-24       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  COVID-19 research: pandemic versus "paperdemic", integrity, values and risks of the "speed science".

Authors:  Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira
Journal:  Forensic Sci Res       Date:  2020-06-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.