Dealing with research misconduct in the United Kingdom An American perspective on research integrity Conduct unbecoming---the MRC's approach An editor's response to fraudsters Deception: difficulties and initiatives Honest advice from Denmark
“…Both Pascal (1999) and Rennie (1998) briefly describe the set-up and history of the ORI and LaFollette (1994) discusses the work of congressional oversight. In addition, several studies make use of ORI case files ( Davis et al, 2007 ; Wright et al, 2008 ) to investigate causes of misconduct, but do not specifically examine procedures or outcomes.…”
Section: Handling Of Misconduct and Retractions In Organizationsmentioning
Retractions of scientific articles are becoming the most relevant institution for making sense of scientific misconduct. An increasing number of retracted articles, mainly attributed to misconduct, is currently providing a new empirical basis for research about scientific misconduct. This article reviews the relevant research literature from an interdisciplinary context. Furthermore, the results from these studies are contextualized sociologically by asking how scientific misconduct is made visible through retractions. This study treats retractions as an emerging institution that renders scientific misconduct visible, thus, following up on the sociology of deviance and its focus on visibility. The article shows that retractions, by highlighting individual cases of misconduct and general policies for preventing misconduct while obscuring the actors and processes through which retractions are effected, produce highly fragmented patterns of visibility. These patterns resemble the bifurcation in current justice systems.
“…Both Pascal (1999) and Rennie (1998) briefly describe the set-up and history of the ORI and LaFollette (1994) discusses the work of congressional oversight. In addition, several studies make use of ORI case files ( Davis et al, 2007 ; Wright et al, 2008 ) to investigate causes of misconduct, but do not specifically examine procedures or outcomes.…”
Section: Handling Of Misconduct and Retractions In Organizationsmentioning
Retractions of scientific articles are becoming the most relevant institution for making sense of scientific misconduct. An increasing number of retracted articles, mainly attributed to misconduct, is currently providing a new empirical basis for research about scientific misconduct. This article reviews the relevant research literature from an interdisciplinary context. Furthermore, the results from these studies are contextualized sociologically by asking how scientific misconduct is made visible through retractions. This study treats retractions as an emerging institution that renders scientific misconduct visible, thus, following up on the sociology of deviance and its focus on visibility. The article shows that retractions, by highlighting individual cases of misconduct and general policies for preventing misconduct while obscuring the actors and processes through which retractions are effected, produce highly fragmented patterns of visibility. These patterns resemble the bifurcation in current justice systems.
“…Rennie has noted that one reason of response failure is the assessment by 'scientific dialogue' model does not work, as this model is assessment of allegation by peers, who are unfamiliar with legal principles. And legal model based on administrative law is more likely to be effective [35,36].…”
Misconduct in clinical research is an unfortunate reality and widespread. Researchers are expected to conduct research and report results honestly. However, that is not how clinical trials always get done. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guideline is adopted internationally as a standard operating process for purpose of conducting, recording or reporting clinical trials. However, unavailability of international harmonized framework for misconduct management makes clinical research industry vulnerable to commit misconduct. Most of the cases of misconduct are probably not published. They are not recognized or covered up altogether. Misconduct and fraud can be due to any reasons and of various types. In all circumstances, any misconduct should be handled strictly and related regulations should be at place to prevent occurrences. Very few cases of scientific misconducts have been identified or reported in India. However, there is no evidence that all clinical trials conducted in India meet ethical standards and misconduct does not exist. Rather it is more likely that the scientific misconduct amongst researcher have not been systematically investigated. This article discusses the possible reasons for the occurrence of scientific misconduct and explores options, which can possibly help prevent such instances.
“…The problem with these organizations is that they lack any legal or binding power and are unable to police scientific journals. Ultimate responsibility does lie with individual institutions [1].…”
Section: Regulatory Organizationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, it is paramount that it is eradicated to the lowest possible level. Academic expectations, personal financial gain, retribution for previous failures, and such simple reasons as vanity and laziness are all motives for why fraud is committed [1, 2]. The British definition of scientific fraud is:“Behaviour by a researcher, intentional or not, that falls short of good ethical and scientific standards” [3].…”
Fraud is an important issue that affects research of both scientific and clinical fields because of its potential to adversely affect patient care. Fraud can take many forms, each with varying prevalence and implications. A number of ethical institutions have been created to investigate and regulate this malpractice. Using case examples, we describe the various forms of fraud and their potential implications. The increasing importance of editorial responsibility is highlighted and discussed. Finally, we suggest solutions for how to effectively regulate and eradicate this practise.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
