In Defense of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Response to Radder.

IF 2.8 1区哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2023.2167599

Jeroen de Ridder, Lex Bouter, Tamarinde Haven, Rik Peels, Joeri Tijdink, Maurice P Zeegers

引用次数: 1

Abstract

We assess Radder's criticisms of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and show that they either miss their mark or depend on controversial background assumptions about the purpose of the Code. Although Radder raises important questions about the broader roles and purposes of research in society, his conclusion that the Code should be revised in the ways he proposes is unjustified.

查看原文本刊更多论文

捍卫荷兰研究诚信行为准则:对Radder的回应。

我们评估了Radder对荷兰研究诚信行为准则的批评，并表明他们要么没有达到目的，要么依赖于关于准则目的的有争议的背景假设。尽管Radder对研究在社会中更广泛的角色和目的提出了重要的问题，但他认为《法典》应该按照他提出的方式进行修订的结论是不合理的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance MEDICAL ETHICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.70%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.