Literature DB >> 8373489

Institutional structure to ensure research integrity.

C K Gunsalus1.   

Abstract

The single most important component in an institutional culture of research integrity is institutional leadership committed to ethical conduct. If the institution's leaders are committed to integrity in research and act on that commitment, the campus will follow that lead; conversely, if the perception develops that the leaders pay only lip service to ethical conduct, the campus will adopt the same attitude. An institution must pay attention to both prevention and education, and many are developing codes of conduct. Further, institutions must establish a misconduct review process that can render objective, fact-based decisions untainted by personal bias and conflicts of interest. In developing such a process, leaders must be aware of probable pitfalls, create an accessible structure, and provide for consistent assessment of allegations and complaints, focusing on facts, not personalities. Increased demands for accountability and a heightened public interest in ethical issues portend increasing pressures on institutions to monitor the conduct of their members. The institution that builds effective, credible structures for preventing and resolving ethical issues will be well equipped to cope with these external pressures. Ultimately, however, institutional structures for such monitoring accomplish far more than preserving institutional autonomy: they protect the principle of scholarly and scientific inquiry that is at the core of the institution's mission.

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8373489     DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199309000-00031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  7 in total

1.  Preventing scientific misconduct.

Authors:  D L Weed
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Main outcomes of an RCT to pilot test reporting and feedback to foster research integrity climates in the VA.

Authors:  Brian C Martinson; David C Mohr; Martin P Charns; David Nelson; Emily Hagel-Campbell; Ann Bangerter; Hanna E Bloomfield; Richard Owen; Carol R Thrush
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2017-08-07

3.  Monitoring clinical research: an obligation unfulfilled.

Authors:  C Weijer; S Shapiro; A Fuks; K C Glass; M Skrutkowska
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1995-06-15       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Getting from A to IRB: developing an institutional review board at a historically black university.

Authors:  Daniel L Howard; Carlton L Boyd; Daniel K Nelson; Paul Godley
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.742

5.  Exposure to Unethical Career Events: Effects on Decision-Making, Climate, and Socialization.

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

6.  Initial Results from the Survey of Organizational Research Climates (SOuRCe) in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

Authors:  Brian C Martinson; David Nelson; Emily Hagel-Campbell; David Mohr; Martin P Charns; Ann Bangerter; Carol R Thrush; Joseph R Ghilardi; Hanna Bloomfield; Richard Owen; James A Wells
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective.

Authors:  Govert Valkenburg; Guus Dix; Joeri Tijdink; Sarah de Rijcke
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 3.525

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.