教学与评估负责任的研究行为:德尔菲共识小组报告》。

IF 0.5 Q4 MANAGEMENT
Journal of Research Administration Pub Date : 2009-01-01
James M Dubois, Jeffrey M Dueker
{"title":"教学与评估负责任的研究行为:德尔菲共识小组报告》。","authors":"James M Dubois, Jeffrey M Dueker","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In an effort to foster research integrity, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation mandate education of all trainees in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). Nevertheless, recent studies suggest that rates of questionable research practices and scientific misconduct are both high and considerably underreported. In part, this may be due to the fact that some ethical norms (e.g., authorship assignment) are far from clear and researchers are unsure how to respond to perceived misconduct. With funding from the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), we convened four panels of experts to develop a consensus on the overarching goals and teaching content of RCR instruction. Our panelists recommended nine overarching objectives for RCR instruction that require us to rethink common modes of instruction, and they identified issues and standards that should be covered within controversial areas such as authorship assignment and whistle-blowing. Additionally, our experts recommended two new core areas for RCR instruction: The social responsibilities of scientists and current topics in RCR.</p>","PeriodicalId":43094,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research Administration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3322664/pdf/nihms175133.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Teaching and Assessing the Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Consensus Panel Report.\",\"authors\":\"James M Dubois, Jeffrey M Dueker\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In an effort to foster research integrity, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation mandate education of all trainees in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). Nevertheless, recent studies suggest that rates of questionable research practices and scientific misconduct are both high and considerably underreported. In part, this may be due to the fact that some ethical norms (e.g., authorship assignment) are far from clear and researchers are unsure how to respond to perceived misconduct. With funding from the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), we convened four panels of experts to develop a consensus on the overarching goals and teaching content of RCR instruction. Our panelists recommended nine overarching objectives for RCR instruction that require us to rethink common modes of instruction, and they identified issues and standards that should be covered within controversial areas such as authorship assignment and whistle-blowing. Additionally, our experts recommended two new core areas for RCR instruction: The social responsibilities of scientists and current topics in RCR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Research Administration\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3322664/pdf/nihms175133.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Research Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了促进研究诚信,美国国立卫生研究院和美国国家科学基金会规定对所有受训人员进行负责任的研究行为 (RCR) 教育。然而,最近的研究表明,有问题的研究实践和科学不端行为的发生率很高,而且报告率低得多。部分原因可能是由于某些道德规范(如作者分配)远未明确,研究人员不知道如何应对所发现的不当行为。在美国研究诚信办公室(ORI)的资助下,我们召集了四个专家小组,就 RCR 教学的总体目标和教学内容达成共识。我们的专家小组成员为 RCR 教学推荐了九个总体目标,这要求我们重新思考常见的教学模式,他们还确定了在作者分配和举报等有争议的领域中应涵盖的问题和标准。此外,我们的专家还为 RCR 教学推荐了两个新的核心领域:科学家的社会责任和当前 RCR 的主题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Teaching and Assessing the Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Consensus Panel Report.

In an effort to foster research integrity, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation mandate education of all trainees in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). Nevertheless, recent studies suggest that rates of questionable research practices and scientific misconduct are both high and considerably underreported. In part, this may be due to the fact that some ethical norms (e.g., authorship assignment) are far from clear and researchers are unsure how to respond to perceived misconduct. With funding from the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), we convened four panels of experts to develop a consensus on the overarching goals and teaching content of RCR instruction. Our panelists recommended nine overarching objectives for RCR instruction that require us to rethink common modes of instruction, and they identified issues and standards that should be covered within controversial areas such as authorship assignment and whistle-blowing. Additionally, our experts recommended two new core areas for RCR instruction: The social responsibilities of scientists and current topics in RCR.

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
1.20
自引率
50.00%
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