当我使用一个词时 . .学术诚信-重罪与轻罪

The BMJ Pub Date : 2024-11-08 DOI:10.1136/bmj.q2473
Jeffrey K Aronson
{"title":"当我使用一个词时 . .学术诚信-重罪与轻罪","authors":"Jeffrey K Aronson","doi":"10.1136/bmj.q2473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Academic norms include: preservation of academic autonomy; integrity in academic practices; a priori formulation of hypotheses and publication of protocols; the use of appropriate methods by which evidence is obtained; the use of appropriate methods for interpreting the accumulated knowledge so obtained; the need to take heed of the possible consequences, both intended and unintended, of research; the use of comprehensible language in describing outcomes and their interpretation; universalism; communality; disinterestedness; organised skepticism, but limited to one's own sphere of academic interest; appropriate curiosity; avoidance of inappropriate enthusiasm; and respect for the work of others. Violation of all of these is possible, and different types of violations are known by different terms: “research misconduct” refers to three major violations, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism; I prefer to call these collectively by the legal term “felonies,” emphasising their gravity and importance. Other violations are known as “questionable research practices,” which I prefer to call by the stronger term “misdemeanours,” again emphasising their importance, although they are less grave than felonies. Interest in detecting, reporting, and discussing these violations has increased markedly since 1990, but I have found only two systematic reviews, one of which, disappointingly, but perhaps not unexpectedly, shows that there is little useful evidence on the subject, and a second, which shows that the likely prevalences of both types, felonies and misdemeanours, are higher than one would want, although probably estimated at lower than they truly are. The definition of a “norm” in the Oxford English Dictionary ( OED ) relevant to academic practice is “A standard or pattern of social behaviour that is accepted in or expected of a group.”1 In this case the group is the amorphous collection of academics, in whatever discipline they are involved. The relevant definition of an academic is “a member of a university or …","PeriodicalId":22388,"journal":{"name":"The BMJ","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When I use a word . . . Academic integrity—felonies and misdemeanours\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey K Aronson\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmj.q2473\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Academic norms include: preservation of academic autonomy; integrity in academic practices; a priori formulation of hypotheses and publication of protocols; the use of appropriate methods by which evidence is obtained; the use of appropriate methods for interpreting the accumulated knowledge so obtained; the need to take heed of the possible consequences, both intended and unintended, of research; the use of comprehensible language in describing outcomes and their interpretation; universalism; communality; disinterestedness; organised skepticism, but limited to one's own sphere of academic interest; appropriate curiosity; avoidance of inappropriate enthusiasm; and respect for the work of others. Violation of all of these is possible, and different types of violations are known by different terms: “research misconduct” refers to three major violations, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism; I prefer to call these collectively by the legal term “felonies,” emphasising their gravity and importance. Other violations are known as “questionable research practices,” which I prefer to call by the stronger term “misdemeanours,” again emphasising their importance, although they are less grave than felonies. Interest in detecting, reporting, and discussing these violations has increased markedly since 1990, but I have found only two systematic reviews, one of which, disappointingly, but perhaps not unexpectedly, shows that there is little useful evidence on the subject, and a second, which shows that the likely prevalences of both types, felonies and misdemeanours, are higher than one would want, although probably estimated at lower than they truly are. The definition of a “norm” in the Oxford English Dictionary ( OED ) relevant to academic practice is “A standard or pattern of social behaviour that is accepted in or expected of a group.”1 In this case the group is the amorphous collection of academics, in whatever discipline they are involved. The relevant definition of an academic is “a member of a university or …\",\"PeriodicalId\":22388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The BMJ\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The BMJ\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q2473\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The BMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q2473","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学术规范包括维护学术自主权;学术行为的诚信;先验地提出假设和公布规程;使用适当的方法获取证据;使用适当的方法解释所积累的知识;需要注意研究可能产生的后果,包括有意的和无意的后果;在描述研究成果及其解释时使用可理解的语言;普遍性;共同性;无私性;有组织的怀疑,但仅限于自己感兴趣的学术领域;适当的好奇心;避免不适当的热情;以及尊重他人的工作。违反所有这些都是可能的,不同类型的违反行为有不同的名称:"研究不端行为 "指的是捏造、篡改和剽窃这三大违规行为;我更愿意用法律术语 "重罪 "来统称这些行为,以强调其严重性和重要性。其他违规行为被称为 "有问题的研究实践",我更愿意用更强烈的术语 "轻罪 "来称呼它们,这也是为了强调它们的重要性,尽管它们没有重罪那么严重。自 1990 年以来,人们对发现、报告和讨论这些违规行为的兴趣明显增加,但我只找到了两篇系统性综述,其中一篇令人失望,但也许并不出乎意料,它表明在这个问题上几乎没有有用的证据,而另一篇综述则表明,重罪和轻罪这两类行为的可能发生率都高于人们的预期,尽管估计值可能低于实际发生率。牛津英语词典》(OED)中与学术实践相关的 "规范 "定义是 "一个群体所接受或期望的社会行为标准或模式 "1 。学者的相关定义是 "大学或学术机构的成员"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When I use a word . . . Academic integrity—felonies and misdemeanours
Academic norms include: preservation of academic autonomy; integrity in academic practices; a priori formulation of hypotheses and publication of protocols; the use of appropriate methods by which evidence is obtained; the use of appropriate methods for interpreting the accumulated knowledge so obtained; the need to take heed of the possible consequences, both intended and unintended, of research; the use of comprehensible language in describing outcomes and their interpretation; universalism; communality; disinterestedness; organised skepticism, but limited to one's own sphere of academic interest; appropriate curiosity; avoidance of inappropriate enthusiasm; and respect for the work of others. Violation of all of these is possible, and different types of violations are known by different terms: “research misconduct” refers to three major violations, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism; I prefer to call these collectively by the legal term “felonies,” emphasising their gravity and importance. Other violations are known as “questionable research practices,” which I prefer to call by the stronger term “misdemeanours,” again emphasising their importance, although they are less grave than felonies. Interest in detecting, reporting, and discussing these violations has increased markedly since 1990, but I have found only two systematic reviews, one of which, disappointingly, but perhaps not unexpectedly, shows that there is little useful evidence on the subject, and a second, which shows that the likely prevalences of both types, felonies and misdemeanours, are higher than one would want, although probably estimated at lower than they truly are. The definition of a “norm” in the Oxford English Dictionary ( OED ) relevant to academic practice is “A standard or pattern of social behaviour that is accepted in or expected of a group.”1 In this case the group is the amorphous collection of academics, in whatever discipline they are involved. The relevant definition of an academic is “a member of a university or …
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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