Literature DB >> 27896602

A Review of the Scientific Misconduct Inquiry Process, Ankara Chamber of Medicine, Turkey.

Banu Gökçay1, Berna Arda2.   

Abstract

The aim of this study is to review the inquiry process used in scientific misconduct cases in the Ankara Chamber of Medicine between the years 1998 and 2012. The violations of the "Disciplinary Regulations of the Turkish Medical Association" have been examined by keeping the names of the people, institutions, associations and journals secret. In total, 31 files have been studied and 11 of these files have been identified as related to scientific misconduct. The methods of inquiry, the decisions about the need for an investigation process, the types of scientific misconduct, and the adjudication processes have all been reported. Furthermore, the motives of researchers who made allegations, the study approaches of investigators, and the objections to the decisions about guilt and innocence have also been examined. Based on the findings obtained, the reasons for scientific misconduct and the distribution of responsibilities among the people in the inquiry process have been discussed. A major conclusion is the need to standardize the process of conducting inquiries about scientific misconduct cases for the regional chambers of medicine in Turkey.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ankara Chamber of Medicine; Medical ethics; Plagiarism; Responsible conduct of research; Scientific misconduct

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27896602      PMCID: PMC5446929          DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9824-8

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


  5 in total

1.  Ghostwriting: research misconduct, plagiarism, or fool's gold?

Authors:  Xavier Bosch; Joseph S Ross
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 4.965

2.  Research integrity and publication ethics.

Authors:  Ulrike Beisiegel
Journal:  Atherosclerosis       Date:  2010-02-18       Impact factor: 5.162

3.  Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions.

Authors:  Nicholas H Steneck
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Scientific misconduct: a new approach to prevention.

Authors:  Magne Nylenna; Sigmund Simonsen
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-06-10       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Scientific research and the public trust.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2010-08-29       Impact factor: 3.525

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.