Evaluating research misconduct policies at major research universities: A pilot study

Accountability in Research

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 241-262

  Lind, Rebecca Ann ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; ETHICS; EVALUATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PILOT STUDY; POLICY; RESEARCH ETHICS; SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; STANDARD; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY; WHISTLEBLOWING;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL APPROACH;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ETHICS, RESEARCH; EVALUATION STUDIES; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; PILOT PROJECTS; SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITIES; WHISTLEBLOWING;

EID: 33646845786     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989620500217560     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Alberts, B., and Shine, K. (1994). Scientists and the Integrity of Research, Science, 266(9): 1660-1661.
2. Bennett, J. M., and Hamblin, T. J. (1994). Medical Bioresearch and Scientific Integrity, Leukemia Research, 18(10): 725-726.
3. Birnbaum, L. S., and Culpepper, B. T. (1999). Research Integrity: A Government Perspective, Quality Assurance, 7: 217-224.
4. Cho, M. K., Shohara, R., Schissel, A. M., and Rennie, D. (2000). Policies on Faculty Conflicts of Interest at U.S. Universities, Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(17): 2203-2208 Obtained online, retrieved September 25, 2003.
5. CHPS Consulting. (2000). Analysis of Institutional Policies for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct. Report prepared for the Office of Research Integrity. Available at http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/institutional_policies.pdf. Link verified January 18, 2005.
6. Danforth, W. H., and Schoenhoff, D. M. (1992). Fostering Integrity in Scientific Research, Academic Medicine, 67(6): 351-356.
7. Evans, G. R. (2001). The Integrity of U.K. Academic Research Under Commercial Threat, Science as Culture, 10(1): 97-111.
8. Fields, K. L., and Price, A. R. (1993). Problems in Research Integrity Arising from Misconceptions About the Ownership of Research, Academic Medicine, 68(9): S60-S64.
9. Gunsalus, C. K. (1993). Institutional Structures to Ensure Research Integrity, Academic Medicine, 68(9): S33-S38.
10. James, J. E. (2002). "Third-Party" Threats to Research Integrity in Public-Private Partnerships, Addiction, 97: 1251-1255.
11. Jasanoff, S. (1993). Innovation and Integrity in Biomedical Research, Academic Medicine, 68(9): S91-S95.
12. Jones, S. M. (2000). Integrity in Research, Seminars in Hearing, 21(1): 87-97.
13. Kennedy, V. W., and Katz, R. N. (1995). Integrity in the Research University, SRA Journal, 27(1): 33-37.
14. Ketefian, S., and Lenz, E. R. (1995). Promoting Scientific Integrity in Nursing Research, Part II: Strategies, Journal of Professional Nursing, 11(5): 263-269.
15. Korenman, S. G., Berk, R., Wenger, N. S., and Lew, V. (1998). Evaluation of the Research Norms of Scientists and Administrators Responsible for Academic Research Integrity, Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(1): 41-47.
16. Lenz, E. R., and Ketefian, S. (1995). Promoting Scientific Integrity in Nursing Research Part I: Current Approaches in Doctoral Programs, Journal of Professional Nursing, 11(4): 213-219.
17. Logicon/ROW Sciences (2001). Analysis of Guidelines for the Conduct of Research Adopted by Medical Schools or their Components. Available at http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/analysis_guidelines_research.pdf. Link verified January 18, 2005.
18. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., and DeVries, R. (2004, November). Scientists' Perceptions of Working Conditions and Self-Reported Misbehaviors. Presentation to the ORI Research Conference on Research Integrity, San Diego.
19. National Academies (2002). Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct. Report of the Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments. Institute of Medicine, National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
20. Pascal, C. B. (2000). Scientific Misconduct and Research Integrity for the Bench Scientist, Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 224(4): 220-230.
21. Rennie, D. (1998). An American Perspective on Research Integrity, BMJ, 316: 1726-1733.
22. Rhoades, L. J. (2004, November). ORI Closed Investigations into Misconduct Allegations Involving Research Supported by the Public Health Service: 1994-2003. Paper presented at the ORI Research Conference on Research Integrity, San Diego.
23. Rhoades, L. J. (2003, October). Policies and Procedures: Minimal or Useful. Presentation to the introductory workshop for institutional research integrity officers. University of Connecticut Health Center.
24. Ryan, K. J. (1999). Research Misconduct in Clinical Research: The American Experience and Response, Acta Oncologica, 38(1): 93-97.
25. Sheetz, M. D. (2001). Promoting Integrity Through "Instructions to Authors:" A Preliminary Analysis. Washington, DC: Office of Research Integrity. Available at http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/instructions_authors.pdf. Link verified January 18, 2005.
26. Shenk, D. (1999, March 22). Money + Science = Ethics problems on campus, Nation, 268(11): 11-16.
27. Steneck, N. H. (2002). Institutional and Individual Responsibilities for Integrity in Research, The American Journal of Bioethics, 2(4): 51-53.
28. Sullender, W., Snyder, S., Tilden, S., Benow, D., and Wright, J. R. (2004, November). Assessment of Perceptions of Research Integrity. Presentation at the ORI Research Conference on Research Integrity, San Diego.
29. Swazey, J. P. (1998). Research Integrity: Why it Matters, Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 13(1): 61-64.
30. White, A. H., Coudret, N. A., and Goodwin, C. S. (1998). From Authorship to Contributorship: Promoting Integrity in Research Publications, Nurse Educator, 23(6): 26-32 Online, retrieved September 25, 2003.