The AHRECS team believes this is an essential read for practitioners involved in the establishment of new research integrity arrangements for a jurisdiction and for us all when commenting on reviews of arrangements (such as the review currently underway in Australia).
.
The report also renames those problematic practices — such as “misleading statistical analysis that falls short of falsification,” awarding authorship to researchers who don’t deserve it (and vice versa), not sharing data, and poorly supervising research — as “detrimental” research practices. In the past, many have dubbed those behaviors as “questionable.”
.
The reason for the nomenclature change, according to a member of the Committee on Responsible Science (which wrote the report) CK Gunsalus, is to help the community understand that these aren’t just behaviors they should question — they can cause harm. Gunsalus, Director of the National Center for Professional and Research Ethics, told Retraction Watch:
.
U.S. panel sounds alarm on “detrimental” research practices, calls for new body to help tackle misconduct – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | April 2017))
Posted by saviorteam in Research Integrity on May 5, 2017
Keywords: Breaches, Data management, Fraud, Honesty, Institutional responsibilities, International, News, Research integrity, Research Misconduct, Supervision
Keywords: Breaches, Data management, Fraud, Honesty, Institutional responsibilities, International, News, Research integrity, Research Misconduct, Supervision
Related Reading
No Related Readings Found!
Related Links
Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.