Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Scientific Misconduct”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
PubMed2003

Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies?

The purpose of this article is to encourage and help inform active discussion of authorship policies among members of scientific societies. The article explains the history and rationale of the influential criteria for authorship developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, examines questions about those criteria that emerge from authorship policies adopted by several U.S. medical schools, and summarizes the arguments for replacing authorship with the contributor-guarantor model. Finally, it concludes with a plea for scientific societies to play a prominent role in the ongoing debates about authorship and the alternatives as part of their efforts to encourage ethical conduct among their members. Whether or not scientific societies develop authorship policies of their own, they should undertake vigorous educational efforts to keep their new members adequately informed about the importance of authorship practices in ethical scientific research and publication.

Authorship↗
PubMed1994

Scientific misconduct in environmental science and toxicology.

Scientific misconduct easily occurs in environmental science and toxicology; we encountered four such cases. Only one case was discovered by editors; three were reported by other authors. All guilty authors were eventually banned from future publication in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Cases in the Bulletin indicate that scientific misconduct may occur undetected across phyla, genera, and species; that distance from the publishing source makes detection more difficult; that editors and reviewers are not organized to take action against scientific misconduct; that plagiarized authors are likely to report plagiarism; and that there is only a small risk of censure from any source for authors engaging in scientific misconduct.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Perceptions of scientific misconduct in nursing.

Recently, scientific misconduct and ethical problems in research have been widely discussed. Some have created embarrassment and shaken the scientific community. In response to concerns about the adequacy of the scientific community's self-regulations, attempts are being made to refine policies and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Off with their heads: the need to criminalize some forms of scientific misconduct.

Improvement in policy for the management of scientific misconduct has been slow. While assurance of due process at the ORI level is now in place, similar protections at the institutional level and institutional responsibility for further oversight and a workplace where the responsible conduct of research can be practiced have not yet been addressed. In contrast, policy regarding human subject protection has evolved rapidly to reflect firmer norms, with decisive priority given to subject protection over scientific or social needs. Perhaps because scientific misconduct policy has the potential to harm the careers of individual scientists and harms to individual subjects are thought to be indirect, the scientific community has been successful in blocking every move toward testing more rigorous regulation. The mantras that scientists can discipline their own, and the price of competitive science is some level of scientific misconduct are not persuasive. The standards by which science is judged should not be an exception to those governing others who deal with the public's money and have a duty to the public interest.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Academic and scientific misconduct: issues for nursing educators.

The public attention to issues of academic and research misconduct requires that all faculty and students become familiar with the policy and procedural areas and roles of various officials in handling allegations of misconduct. Although the incidence of such misconduct seems to be small, issues of reporting, adjudication, rehabilitation, and deterrence are important to all with concern about the integrity of academic processes. Many issues concerning the management of allegations of academic or research misconduct remain unresolved. Examples include the definition of misconduct, provision for (or lack of) anonymity, the role of the whistleblower, the burden of proof, the statute of limitations, the nature and application of sanctions, and the processes of rehabilitation.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Improving the scientific misconduct hearing process.

The overturning and withdrawal of several of the Office of Research Integrity's (ORI's) findings of scientific misconduct have called its role into question. The contested findings of scientific misconduct that have been tried before the hearing body have been based on lengthy and expensive ORI investigations. How could ORI have failed to prove its findings of scientific misconduct after the commitment of substantial resources that far exceed those devoted during institutional investigations? One reason may be that the current hearing process makes it difficult or impossible for ORI, institutions, or individuals to prove scientific misconduct. The hearing process has been criticized by discouraged whistleblowers who believe that their allegations of scientific misconduct should have been upheld, and by the accused for the expensive and protracted nature of the proceedings. The following article examines problems in the scientific misconduct hearing process and suggests that the process could be improved by letting administrative law judges, patent attorneys, and a scientific majority decide these cases.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed2004

ORI findings of scientific misconduct in clinical trials and publicly funded research, 1992-2002.

BACKGROUND: Since 1992 the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) had reviewed investigations of scientific misconduct in research funded by the US Public Health Service (PHS). ORI defined scientific misconduct as "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research". PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to summarize the findings and administrative actions reported in ORI notices of scientific misconduct in clinical trials occurring between May 1992 and 2002. METHODS: Findings of misconduct were gathered from publicly available sources: the ORI annual reports and the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts. RESULTS: Clinical trials accounted for 17 (13%) of the 136 investigations that resulted in findings of scientific misconduct, and they were noted in 12 (11%) of the 113 brief reports of investigations closed with findings of no scientific misconduct. In clinical trials, the most severe sanction, debarment from US Government funding, was applied in six (35%) of the cases of misconduct compared to 79 (66%) of 119 cases from all other types of research combined. Of individuals cited for misconduct in clinical trials, three (18%) held doctorates in contrast to 81 (68%) in other types of research. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical trials, junior employees may bear the burden of sanction for scientific misconduct. The most frequently applied sanction was the requirement that a plan of supervision of the sanctioned employees accompany any future application for funding which would include them. This imposition of sanction on an individual employee does not address possible causes of misconduct which may be inherent in the overall pattern of leadership, training and supervision in the trial. Furthermore, the definition of misconduct, as interpreted by the Departmental Appeals Board, excludes carelessness and other poor research practices that may lead to dissemination of more incorrect data than misconduct.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗