The black, the white and the grey areas: Towards an international and interdisciplinary definition of scientific misconduct

Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 79-90

  Fanelli, Daniele ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84973413828     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1142/9789814340984_0002     Document Type: Chapter

References (37)

1. Steneck, N.H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1): 53-74.
2. Resnik, D.B. (2003). From Baltimore to Bell Labs: Reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct. Account Res, 10(2): 123-135.
3. Resnik, D.B. (2009). International Standards for Research Integrity: An Idea Whose Time has Come? Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 16(4): 218-228.
4. OECD-GSF (2007). Best Practices for Ensuring Scientific Integrity and Preventing Misconduct, OECD — Global Science Forum.
5. OECD-GSF (2009). Investigating Research Misconduct Allegations in International Collaborative Research Projects — A Practical Guide, OECD — Global Science Forum.
6. ESF (2000). Good scientific practice in research and scholarship. E.S. Foundation, Editor.
7. ESF-ORI (2007). Research Integrity: Global Responsibility to Foster Common Standards, European Science Foundation — Office of Research Integrity (US).
8. Boesz, C. and Lloyd, N. (2008). Collaborations: Investigating international misconduct. Nature, 452(7188): 686-687.
9. Ankier, S. (2002). Dishonesty, misconduct and fraud in clinical research: An international problem. Journal of International Medical Research, 30(4): p. 357-365.
10. Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS One. 5(3).
11. Zammito, J.H. (2004). A Nice Derangement of Epistemes: PostPositivism in the Study of Science from Quine to Latour. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
12. Bosch, X. (2010). Safeguarding good scientific practice in Europe. EMBO Reports 2010, 11(4): 252-257.
13. Guston, D.H. (1999). Changing explanatory frameworks in the US government’s attempt to define research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5(2): 137-154.
14. Schachman, H.K. (1993). What Is Misconduct in Science. Science, 261(5118): 148-149.
15. NAS (1992). Responsible science, Volume I: Ensuring the integrity of the research process. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Publie Policy, Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. Washington, D.C: National Academy of Science.
16. DHHS (1995). Integrity and Misconduct in Research — Report of the Comission on Research Integrity. Department of Health and Human Services — Public Health Service.
17. PHS (2005). Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct. Department of Health and Human Services — Public Health Service, Federal Register, 70(94).
18. Spece, R.G. and Bernstein, C. (2007). Scientific misconduct and liability for the acts of others. Medicine and Law, 26: 477-491.
19. Nylenna, M., et al. (1999). Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. Lancet, 354(9172): 57-61.
20. NCISM (2010). The National Commission for the Investigation of Scientific Misconduct. Accessed on 26 March 2010 [cited 20 August 2010]; Available from: http://www.etikkom.no/en/In-English/Scientific-Misconduct/.
21. TENK (2002). Good Scientific Practice and Procedures for Handling Misconduct and Fraud in Science. Finnish National Advisory Board on Research Ethics.
22. DCSD (2006). Annual Report 2005. Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty — Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation.
23. Anonymous (2003). More heat, less light on Lomborg. Nature, 421(6920): 195.
24. Abbott, A. (2003). Social scientists call for abolition of dishonesty committee. Nature, 421(6924): 681.
25. Andersen, H. (2007). Demarcating Misconduct from Misinterpretations and Mistakes. First Biannual SPSP Conference. Twente.
26. DRA (2003). Report on the Rules Governing Research Ethics. Danish Research Agency.
27. DASTI (2009). Executive Order on the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty — Consolidated Act (Unauthorised translation), Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation — Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.
28. Buzzelli, D.E. (1993). The Definition of Misconduct in Science — a view from NSF. Science, 259(5095): 584-585.
29. NHMR-ARC (2007). Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. A.R.C. National Health and Medical Research Council (eds.). CAS. [cited 06 July 2010]; Available from: http://www.las.cas.cn/jypx/yjsjy/xzfc/yjsdzb/200909/P020090921309232652282.doc.
30. CESHE (2007). Ethics Code. Croatian Committee for Ethics in Science and Higher Education.
31. Breittmayer, J.P., et al. (2000). Responding to allegations of scientific misconduct: The procedure at the French National Medical and Health-Research Institute. Science and Engineering Ethics, 6(1): 41-48.
32. ICMR (2006). Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research on Human Participants. Indian Council of Medical Research.
33. ALLEA A, et al. (2003). Memorandum on Scientific Integrity. ALLEA — ALL European Academies.
34. MER (2006). Act of 30 June 2006 No. 56 on ethics and integrity in research, Ministry of Education and Research — Norwegian Government.
35. SRC (2004). The Swedish Research Council’s Expert Group for Investigation of Suspected Research Misconduct — Guidelines for the Group’s Work. Swedish Research Council.
36. SAAS (2008). Integrity in Scientific Research — Principles and Procedures. Swiss Academies of Art and Sciences.
37. UKRIO (2009). Code of Practice for Research: Promoting Good Practice and Preventing Misconduct. London: UK Research Integrity Office.