Responsible conduct in research

Neale, Anne Victoria; Northrup, Justin; Dailey, Rhonda; Marks, Ellen B.; Abrams, Judith

doi:10.1007/s11948-006-0003-1

Cited by 29 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the rst round of analysis, we inventoried the basic values expressed by these codes, as introduced above. Labels [1] were attached manually by the researchers to extracts of the codes, signifying the value to which reference was made. This involved an interpretive step by the researchers: sometimes a value is explicitly mentioned, but sometimes there is just a description that we interpreted as embodying a certain value.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The rst class of values, relating to truthfulness and more generally to the proper production of scienti c knowledge, often includes values such as methodological rigour, transparency [2], and fair peer review [2][3][4]. Additionally, more abstract values like inquisitiveness [1,5,6] and integrity [7] are frequently mentioned in this respect. The literature draws much inspiration from recent cases of fraud, such as the Stapel case [8] and the Schön case [9].…”

Section: Values In Research Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Making researchers responsible: Attributions of responsibility and ambiguous notions of culture in research codes of conduct

Valkenburg

Dix

Tijdink

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Research codes of conduct offer guidance to researchers with respect to which values should be realized in research practices, how these values are to be realized, and what the respective responsibilities of the individual and the institution are in this. However, the question of how the responsibilities are to be divided between the individual and the institution has hitherto received little attention. We therefore performed an analysis of research codes of conduct to investigate how responsibilities are positioned as individual or institutional, and how the boundary between the two is drawn. Method: We selected 12 institutional, national and international codes of conduct that apply to medical research in the Netherlands and subjected them to a close-reading content analysis. We first identified the dominant themes and then investigated how responsibility is attributed to individuals and institutions.Results: We observed that the attribution of responsibility to either the individual or the institution is often not entirely clear, and that the notion of culture emerges as a residual category for such attributions. We see this notion of responsible research cultures as important; it is something that mediates between the individual level and the institutional level. However, at the same time it largely lacks substantiation. Conclusions: While many attributions of individual and institutional responsibility are clear, the exact boundary between the two is often problematic. We suggest two possible avenues for improving codes of conduct: either to clearly attribute responsibilities to individuals or institutions and depend less on the notion of culture, or to make culture a more explicit concern and articulate what it is and how a good culture might be fostered.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Values In Research Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making researchers responsible: Attributions of responsibility and ambiguous notions of culture in research codes of conduct

Valkenburg

Dix

Tijdink

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…113 Most journals themselves seem unprepared for such troubles; Atlas reviewed the instructions to authors of 122 major biomedical journals and found that only 18% had policies on the retraction of articles. 114 Budd et al present discouraging indications that retracted research continues to be cited, 115 although this practice should eventually disappear as electronic publishing, which allows notices of retraction to be directly linked with retracted articles, 116 However, the same stakeholders in the peer-review system who have been offended by a retraction are owed more than a correction of the scientific record; they are owed an apology. As Souder points out, such apologies are needed so that the culprit will express contrition, the readers will feel reconciled, the other members of the scientific community will be deterred from similar lapses, and the community's faith in the integrity of the system will be restored.…”

Section: Post-publicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature

Souder

2011

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review summarizes the literature of a subset of the published research and commentary on peer review – the ethics of peer review. It attempts to track the various ethical issues that arise among the key participants in peer‐review systems: authors, editors, referees, and readers. These issues include: bias, courtesy, conflict of interest, redundant publication, honesty, transparency, and training. It concludes that debates over such issues as open vs. blind reviews continue unresolved but that new technologies offer some prospects for resolving old issues while they also may create new challenges.

show abstract

“…We analysed fourteen institutional, national and international codes of conduct -predominantly in the field of biomedicine -to answer these two questions. This paper will continue with brief introductions to the two conceptual pillars guiding our analysis: 1) the basic values that matter to (biomedical) scientific research, as reflected by research codes of conduct; and 2) the idea of attribution of responsibility for realising those values and distributing it between the individual and the institution. The method will be explained then, after which the results will be provided and analysed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Making researchers responsible: Attributions of responsibility and ambiguous notions of culture in research codes of conduct

Valkenburg

Dix

Tijdink

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Research codes of conduct offer guidance to researchers with respect to which values should be realized in research practices, how these values are to be realized, and what the respective responsibilities of the individual and the institution are in this. However, the question how the division between individual and institutional responsibilities is to be made, has hitherto received little attention. Therefore, we conduct an analysis of research codes of conduct, and investigate how responsibilities are positioned as individual or institutional ones and how the boundary between those two is shaped.Method We selected 12 codes of conduct that apply to medical research in the Netherlands, and performed a close-reading content analysis of these codes of conduct. We first identify dominant themes, and then investigate how responsibility is attributed to individuals and institutions.Results We observe that in many cases, the attribution of the responsibility to either the individual or the institution is not entirely clear and that the notion of culture appears as a residual category for such attributions. This notion of responsible research cultures is deemed important as something that mediates between the individual and institutional level, but at the same time largely lacks substantiation.Conclusions While many attributions of individual and institutional responsibility are clear, the exact boundary between individual and institutional responsibility is often problematic. We suggest two possible avenues for improvement in codes of conduct: either clearly attribute responsibilities to individuals or institutions and depend less less on the notion of culture, or make culture a more explicit concern and articulate what it is and how it could be fostered.

show abstract

Responsible conduct in research

Cited by 29 publications

References 23 publications

Making researchers responsible: Attributions of responsibility and ambiguous notions of culture in research codes of conduct

Making researchers responsible: Attributions of responsibility and ambiguous notions of culture in research codes of conduct

The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature

Making researchers responsible: Attributions of responsibility and ambiguous notions of culture in research codes of conduct

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About