Promoting Virtue or Punishing Fraud: Mapping Contrasts in the Language of ‘Scientific Integrity’

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 1461-1485

  Horbach, S P J M ^a   Halffman, W ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Co word analysis; Discourse; Research integrity; Scientific integrity; Scientific misconduct; Scientometrics

Indexed keywords

DECEPTION; FRAUD; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MASS MEDIUM; MORALITY; PERSONNEL; POLICY; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH ETHICS; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; WRITING;

DECEPTION; ETHICS, RESEARCH; FRAUD; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MASS MEDIA; PLAGIARISM; POLICY; PUBLIC OPINION; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SOCIAL VALUES; VIRTUES; WRITING;

EID: 85006516214     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 14715546     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9858-y     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Abma, R. (2013). De publicatiefabriek: Over de betekenis van de affaire Stapel. Nijmegen: Uitgeverij Vantilt.
2. Ashmore, M., Myers, G., & Potter, J. (1995). Discourse, rhetoric, reflexivity: Seven days in the library. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, L. C. Petersen, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
3. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65.
4. Bretag, T., & Carapiet, S. (2007). A preliminary study to identify the extent of self-plagiarism in Australian Academic Research. Plagiary: Cross-disciplinary studies in plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification (Vol. 2). Ann Arbor: MPublishing, University of Michigan Library.
5. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155–205. doi:10.1007/bf02019280.
6. Consoli, L. (2006). Scientific misconduct and science ethics: A case study based approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(3), 533–541.
7. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), 11. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
8. Fanelli, D. (2011). The black, the white and the grey areas: Towards an international and interdisciplinary definition of scientific misconduct. In T. Mayer & N. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting research integrity in a global environment (pp. 79–90). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
9. Fanelli, D. (2013). Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature, 494(7436), 149.
10. Gieryn, T. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and Interests in the professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.
11. Gieryn, T. (1995). Boundaries of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, L. C. Petersen, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 293–443). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
12. Gilbert, N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2013). Guidance on research integrity: No union in Europe. [Letter]. Lancet, 381(9872), 1097–1098.
14. Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2014). Heterogeneity in European research integrity guidance: Relying on values or norms? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(3), 79–90. doi:10.1177/1556264614540594.
15. Guston, D. (1999). Between politics and science: Assuring the productivity and integrity of research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Halffman, W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Is inequality among universities increasing? Gini coefficients and the elusive rise of elite universities. Minerva, 48(1), 55–72.
18. Hess, D. J. (1997). Science studies: An advanced introduction. New York: New York University Press.
19. Hiney, M. (2015). What it means, why it is important and how we might protect it. Brussels: Science Europe, working group research integrity.
20. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. [Article]. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. doi:10.1177/0956797611430953.
21. Kevles, D. J. (1985). In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
22. KNAW. (2014). CORRECT CITATION PRACTICE, Academy Advisory Memorandum. KNAW, Committee on Citation Practice.
23. Komić, D., Marušić, S. L., & Marušić, A. (2015). Research integrity and research ethics in professional codes of ethics: Survey of terminology used by professional organizations across research disciplines. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0133662. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133662.
24. Leydesdorff, L. (2001). The challenge of scientometrics: The development, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communications. Boca Raton: Universal-Publishers.
25. Leydesdorff, L., & Milojevic, S. (2015). Scientometrics. arXiv, preprint.
26. Leydesdorff, L., & Welbers, K. (2011). The semantic mapping of words and co-words in contexts. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 469–475. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.008.
27. Magner, L. N. (2002). A history of the life sciences (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
28. Martin, B. R. (2013). Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment. Research Policy, 42(5), 1005–1014. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.011.
29. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738. doi:10.1038/435737a.
30. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
31. Metze, T. A. (2007). The power of discursive boundaries in deliberative practices. Paper presented at the Engaging the Neighbours: science, technology and innovation studies in Amsterdam… and beyond, Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, 2–3 July.
32. Moretti, F., & Pestre, D. (2015). Bankspeak: the language of world bank reports. New Left Review, 92, 75–99.
33. Mulkay, M., Potter, J., & Yearley, S. (1983). Why an analysis of scientific discourse is needed. In K. D. Knorr-Cetina & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science (pp. 171–203). London: Sage.
34. Nye, M. J. (1980). N-rays: An episode in the history and psychology of science. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11(1), 125–156.
35. OECD. (2010). Best practices for ensuring scientific integrity and preventing misconduct. http://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/40188303.pdf.
36. PRINTEGER. (2015). Proposal for coordination and support actions. Nijmegen.
37. PRINTEGER. (2016). Documents and results. https://printeger.eu/documents-results/. Accessed April 20 2016.
38. Qian, H., Wu, X., & Xu, Y. (2011). Dynamic analysis of crowd behavior. In S. G. Tzafestas (Ed.), Intelligent surveillance systems. Intelligent systems, control and automation: Science and engineering (pp. 119–154). Netherlands: Springer.
39. Qin, H. (1999). Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis. Libary Trends, 48(1), 133–159.
40. Radder, H. (1992). Normative reflexions on constructivist approaches to science and technology. Social Studies of Science, 22, 141–173.
41. Radder, H. (2010). Mertonian values, scientific norms, and the commodification of academic research. In H. Radder (Ed.), The commodification of academic research (pp. 231–258). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg Press.
42. Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1993). Reframing policy discourse. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 145–166). Durham: Duke University Press.
43. Resnik, D. B. (2003). From Baltimore to Bell Labs: Reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct. Accountability in Research, 10(2), 123–135. doi:10.1080/08989620300508.
44. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
45. Salwen, H. (2015). The Swedish Research Council’s definition of ‘scientific misconduct’: A critique. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(1), 115–126. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9523-2.
46. Science Europe. (2015). Seven reasons to care about integrity in research. In Science Europe Working Group on Research Integrity—Task Group ‘Knowledge Growth’ (Ed.). Brussels: Science Europe.
47. Sourceforge.net. (2016). KH Coder. https://sourceforge.net/projects/khc/.
48. Steneck, N. H. (1999). Confronting misconduct in science in the 1980s and 1990s: What has and has not been accomplished? Science and Engineering Ethics, 5(2), 161–176. doi:10.1007/s11948-999-0005-x.
49. Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74. doi:10.1007/pl00022268.
50. Storer, N. W. (1966). The social system of science. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
51. Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670–688. doi:10.1177/1745691612460687.
52. Tanimoto, T. T. (1958). An elementary mathematical theory of classification and prediction. New York: International Business Machines Corporation.
53. van der Heyden, M. A. G., van de Ven, T. D., & Opthof, T. (2009). Fraud and misconduct in science: the stem cell seduction. Netherlands Heart Journal, 17(1), 25–29.
54. Walterbusch, M., Gräuler, M., & Teuteberg, F. (2014). How trust is defined: A qualitative and quantitative analysis of scientific literature. In 20th Americas Conference on Informations Systems, Savannah, Georgia, USA.
55. Web of Knowledge. (2016). Thomson Reuters. https://apps.webofknowledge.com/.
56. Yanow, D. (1996). How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington: Georgetown University Press.