解决高等教育研究不端行为的系统性障碍:一个案例研究。

IF 2.2 Q1 ETHICS
James Golden, Catherine M Mazzotta, Kimberly Zittel-Barr
{"title":"解决高等教育研究不端行为的系统性障碍:一个案例研究。","authors":"James Golden,&nbsp;Catherine M Mazzotta,&nbsp;Kimberly Zittel-Barr","doi":"10.1007/s10805-021-09438-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Several widely publicized incidents of academic research misconduct, combined with the politicization of the role of science in public health and policy discourse (e.g., COVID, immunizations) threaten to undermine faith in the integrity of empirical research. Researchers often maintain that peer-review and study replication allow the field to self-police and self-correct; however, stark disparities between official reports of academic research misconduct and self-reports of academic researchers, specifically with regard to data fabrication, belie this argument. Further, systemic imperatives in academic settings often incentivize institutional responses that focus on minimizing reputational harm rather than the impact of fabricated data on the integrity of extant and future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"71-82"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8403249/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systemic Obstacles to Addressing Research Misconduct in Higher Education: A Case Study.\",\"authors\":\"James Golden,&nbsp;Catherine M Mazzotta,&nbsp;Kimberly Zittel-Barr\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10805-021-09438-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Several widely publicized incidents of academic research misconduct, combined with the politicization of the role of science in public health and policy discourse (e.g., COVID, immunizations) threaten to undermine faith in the integrity of empirical research. Researchers often maintain that peer-review and study replication allow the field to self-police and self-correct; however, stark disparities between official reports of academic research misconduct and self-reports of academic researchers, specifically with regard to data fabrication, belie this argument. Further, systemic imperatives in academic settings often incentivize institutional responses that focus on minimizing reputational harm rather than the impact of fabricated data on the integrity of extant and future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Academic Ethics\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"71-82\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8403249/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Academic Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09438-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Academic Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09438-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

几起被广泛报道的学术研究不端事件,加上科学在公共卫生和政策话语中的作用被政治化(例如,COVID、免疫接种),有可能破坏人们对实证研究完整性的信心。研究人员通常认为,同行评议和研究复制使该领域能够自我监督和自我纠正;然而,学术研究不端行为的官方报告与学术研究人员自我报告之间的明显差异,特别是在数据捏造方面,使这一论点不成立。此外,学术环境中的系统性要求往往会激励机构的反应,这些反应的重点是尽量减少名誉损害,而不是捏造的数据对现有和未来研究完整性的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systemic Obstacles to Addressing Research Misconduct in Higher Education: A Case Study.

Several widely publicized incidents of academic research misconduct, combined with the politicization of the role of science in public health and policy discourse (e.g., COVID, immunizations) threaten to undermine faith in the integrity of empirical research. Researchers often maintain that peer-review and study replication allow the field to self-police and self-correct; however, stark disparities between official reports of academic research misconduct and self-reports of academic researchers, specifically with regard to data fabrication, belie this argument. Further, systemic imperatives in academic settings often incentivize institutional responses that focus on minimizing reputational harm rather than the impact of fabricated data on the integrity of extant and future research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Journal of Academic Ethics is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary, peer reviewed journal which examines all ethical issues which arise within the scope of university purposes. The journal publishes original research in the ethics of research production and publication; teaching and student relations; leadership; management and governance. The journal offers sustained inquiry into such topics as the ethics of university strategic directions; ethical investments; sustainability practices; the responsible conduct of research and teaching; collegiality and faculty relations; and the appropriate models of ethical and accountable governance for universities in the 21st century.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信