{"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}
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 …