Assessing the seriousness of research misconduct: Considerations for sanction assignment

Accountability in Research

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 179-205

  Keränen, Lisa ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Misconduct investigation; Research integrity; Research misconduct; Sanction assignment; Scientific misconduct; Seriousness of misconduct

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL APPROACH; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CLASSIFICATION; ETHICS; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MANAGEMENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MOTIVATION; OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY; PERSONNEL; POLICY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PUNISHMENT; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SOCIAL CONTROL; SOCIAL JUSTICE; UNITED STATES;

ANALYTICAL APPROACH; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; HUMANS; INTENTION; MOTIVATION; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; POLICY MAKING; PROFESSIONAL ROLE; PUNISHMENT; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SOCIAL CONTROL, FORMAL; SOCIAL JUSTICE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33746234726     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989620500440261     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Altman, E. (1997). Scientific and research misconduct. In Altman, E. and Hernon, P. (eds.), Research Misconduct: Issues, Implications, Strategies. Greenwich, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing Corporation, pp. 1-32.
2. Altman, E., and Hernon, P. (eds.). (1997). Research Misconduct: Issues, Implications, Strategies. Greenwich, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
3. Ashworth, A. (1992). Three techniques for reducing sentence disparity. In von Hirsch, A. and Ashworth, A. (eds.), Principled Sentencing. York, PA: Northeastern University Press, pp. 282-291.
4. Baier, K. (1966). Moral obligation, American Philosophical Quarterly, 3(3): 210-226.
5. Baier, K. (1987). Moral and legal responsibility. In Siegler, M., Toulmin, S., Zimring, F.E., and Schaffner, K. (eds.), Medical Innovation and Bad Outcomes: Legal, Social, and Ethical Responses. Ann Arbor, MI.: Health Administration Press, pp. 101-129.
6. Broad, W., and Wade, N. (1982). Betrayers of the Truth. New York: Simon and Schuster.
7. CHPS Consulting (2000). Final Report: Analysis of Institutional Policies for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct, (Contracted Report No. 282-98-0008: Submitted to Office of Research Integrity, September 29) Columbia, MD.
8. Dresser, R. (1993a). Sanctions for research misconduct: A legal perspective, Academic Medicine, 9(68): S39-S43.
9. Dresser, R. (1993b). Defining scientific misconduct: The relevance of mental state, Journal of the American Medical Association, 269(7): 895-897.
10. Douglas, J. D. (1993). Deviance in the practice of science, Academic Medicine, 68(9): 577-583.
11. Dubber, M. D. (2000). Penal Panopticon: The idea of a modern Model Penal Code, Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 4: 53-100.
12. Ferzan, K. K. (2002). Don't abandon the Model Penal Code yet! Thinking through Simons's Rethinking, Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 6(1): 185-217.
13. Friedman, P. J. (1993). (Ed.) Integrity in biomedical research, Academic Medicine, 68(3): S1-S102.
14. Guenin, L. M. (1996). The logical geography of concepts and shared responsibilities concerning research misconduct, Academic Medicine, 71(6): 595-603.
15. Kohn, A. (1986). False Prophets. New York: Basil Blackwell.
16. LaFollette, M. C. (1992). Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
17. LaFollette, M. C. (1994a). The politics of research misconduct: Congressional oversight, universities, and science, Journal of Higher Education, 65(3): 261-287.
18. LaFollette, M. C. (1994b). The pathology of research fraud: The history and politics of the US experience, Journal of Internal Medicine, 235: 129-135.
19. Hart, H. L. A. (1977). Legal responsibility and excuses. In Kipnis, K. (ed.), Philosophical Issues in Law: Cases and Materials. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., pp. 10-28.
20. Lock, S. (1994). Research misconduct: A brief history and comparison, Journal of Internal Medicine, 235: 123-127.
21. Lubalin, J. S., Matheson, J. L., and Ardini, M.-A. E. (1996). Survey of Accused but Exonerated Individuals in Research Misconduct Cases. Washington, D.C.: Research Triangle Institute.
22. Martin, E. A. (ed.). (1997). Dictionary of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23. National Academy of Sciences (1992). Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volume I. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
24. National Academy of Sciences (1993). Methods, definitions, and basic assumptions: Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. In Bulger, R. E., Heitman, E., and Reiser, S. J. (eds.), The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 106-113.
25. Office of Research Integrity. (1997). Model Policy for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct. Retrieved June 21, 2005, from the World Wide Web. Available at http://www.ori.dhhs.gov/documents/model_policy_responding_allegations.pdf.
26. Office of Research Integrity. (2001). Office of Research Integrity Website. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved January 13, 2001, from the World Wide Web. Available at www.ori.dhhs.gov.
27. Office of Research Integrity (2005, March). Eight research misconduct findings made in 2004, ORI Newsletter, 13(2): 1-6.
28. Office of Science and Technology Policy (2000a). Federal Policy on Research Misconduct. Retrieved January 10, 2001, from the World Wide Web:. Available at http://www.ostp.gov/html/001207_3.html.
29. Office of Science and Technology Policy (2000b). Notification of final policy; Federal policy on research misconduct; Preamble for research misconduct policy, Federal Register, 65(235): 76260-76264.
30. Parrish, D. M. (2004). Scientific misconduct and findings against graduate and medical students, Science and Engineering Ethics, 10: 483-491.
31. Pincoffs, E. L. (1966). The Rationale of Legal Punishment. New York: Humanities Press.
32. Primoratz, I. (1989). Justifying Legal Punishment. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International, Inc.
33. Resnik, D. B. (2003). From Baltimore to Bell Labs: Reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct, Accountability in Research, 10: 123-135.
34. Rhodes, R., and J. J. Strain (2004). The Olivieri Symposium: Whistleblowing in academic medicine, Journal of Medical Ethics, 30: 35-39.
35. Ryan, K. J. (1995). Integrity and Misconduct in Research: Report of the Commission on Research Integrity. Commission on Research Integrity. Retrieved January 13, 2000, from the World Wide Web:. Available at http://gopher.faseb.org/opar/cri.html.
36. Thompson, J. J. (1986). Rights, Restitution, and Risk: Essays in Moral Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
37. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1993). Office of Research Integrity: An Introduction. Rockville, MD: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Public Health Service, Office of Research Integrity.
38. von Hirsch, A. (1992). Proportionate punishments. In von Hirsch, A. and Ashworth, A. (eds.), Principled Sentencing. York, PA: Northeastern University Press, pp. 195-200.
39. von Hirsch, A., and Ashworth, A. (eds.). (1992). Principled Sentencing. York, PA: Northeastern University Press.
40. Wilmshurst, P. (1997). The code of silence, The Lancet, 349(9051): 567-569.
41. Ziman, J. (1984). An Introduction to Science Studies: The Philosophical and Social Aspects of Science and Technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Zimmerman, M. J. (1987). Luck and moral responsibility, Ethics, 97(2): 374-386.