Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 68-101

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 68...
... The . A majority of the pane' members expressed concern that the relatively rare instances of scientific fraud might provoke regulatory reforms that would be inappropriate for improving the conduct of responsible research practices and that would also threaten the vitality of creative research.
From page 69...
... A regulatory approach based on oversight of the research protocols requires that a detailed canon of _~ a, research practices He establlsned, that detailed research plans be drawn up at the initiation of the study, that deviations from the seedy protocol be justified in advance, and that adherence to these practices and protocols be monitored through periodic agents by responsible parties outside the research unit. m e agents might be conducted by granting agencies, by governmental ablating agents, or by institutional officials empowered to conduct such procedures.
From page 70...
... The panel thought it desirable that research units conduct frequent, periodic semurars in which investigators and trainees are able to scrutinize and critique each others' work. Conversely, laboratory practices that encourage corpartment~lization, secrecy, or isolation within the research unit were viewed as incompatible -with the conduct of good research.
From page 71...
... as a normal, routine element of good science and a characteristic of an active and productive research department. Review of the Department by Outside Peers Because the departments exercise a central role in the existing peer review produce' the panel considered mechanisms to ensure that departments and their component research units function in an appropriate manner.
From page 72...
... SHARlNiG I, ME~) D6, AND Rat the panel indicated that authors of published work have a traditional obligation to aid scientists interested In independent replication.
From page 73...
... The panel suggested that investigators have a responsibility to share with qualified peers attempk~ng reproduction of published work the reagents that are ~C=pntial to the independent reprc~uction of the work when these reagents are not generally available. It is believed that many big; research journals, such as Cell, have formal guidelines requiring this practice as a condition of publication.
From page 74...
... The panel notes with concern, however, that when an investigator heads a group that exceeds his or her competence, these circumstances heighten the possibility for inadequate control, sloppy research, and fraud. He panel suggested that each laboratory employing trainees and students have a set of generally accepted good laboratory practices defined for the members of the research staff.
From page 75...
... hue main topics Aged ding its digressions: the diverse nature of clinical r~z=, the adequacy of training, and the efficacy of existing monitoring Anise;. m e panel included research directors and scientists frum academic, industrial, and government research centers; the chairman of medicine and faculty members from major medics schools; the director and staff members from professional associations representing academic health centers and clinical investigators; and the editor of a journal on institutional review boards.
From page 76...
... The panel numbers suggested that the role of the mentor is central to responsible research training for human research, as may also be the case in other fields of basic research. In recent years, mentors have become increasingly remote from junior personnel, depriving emerging investigators of necessary moral and professional as well as scientific guidance.
From page 77...
... Institutional review boards are central to the review process. Moreover, collaborative trials generally have built- m review In research universities, institutional review beards are quite busy Men working at full capacity.
From page 78...
... They explored whether a system of incentives and structures can be devised to enhance,responsible science and to discourage the impulses and practices that contribute to scientific misconduct. In discussing actions to enhance good science, the panel sought to identify areas where initiative by university officers, rather than action at the level of The laboratory or professional association or journal, would have a oo~parative~advantage.
From page 79...
... Recognizing that this exposure could be aornmplished through a general or discipline-b~P~ program of instruction, the pane} endorsed the need to inch the subject of teaching research practices as a formal part of the training process. The experience of the panel members suggester that department=]
From page 80...
... Another suggestion was that each head of a department or research unit should be expec* rl to have a continuous familiarity with the scholarly works submitted for publication by the members of that unit.
From page 81...
... The policy could establish guidelines for the institution as a whole or require that they be developed by separate departmental or research units. The panel recognized the important role of professional journals in addressing the difficult issues of authorship.
From page 82...
... REVIEW OF A TO IMPROPRIETIES The panel members were aware that new federal regulations establishing guidelines for the handling of ~C-= of scientific fraud and misconduct were under consideration by the government. (Nobe: These regulations were published in the Federal Register on 56~*
From page 83...
... o What steeps should be taken to improve the manner in which research misconduct is detected and corrected? O What is the role of professional societies in developing educational and training activities in this area?
From page 84...
... Research laboratories might be encouraged to develop research guidelines clarifying practices affecting data collection, note book keeping, safety, etc. Mare general guidelines could be developed for selected disciplines that a ~ affected by-regulatory standards governing professional practice with respect to animal care, human subjects research, and the handling of toxic or hazardous materials.
From page 85...
... Subetanlarl work may be rejected but students/trainees should be given a reasonable opportunity to improve it. O Sbudents/trainees have the right to know the publication policies and practices of their research unit, including the criteria for authorship and the publication standards of their mentor.
From page 86...
... Several examples of ways in which the societies m~qht exercise this role include: o collaborative efforts with academic institutions In the development of guidelines and curricular materials on research ethics; o education and training efforts for the society firs on the responsible Induct of ah; and o incentives that acknowledge exemplary behavior, such as recognition of cutst~i~ role models in the society meetings and publications. ~air: Carl phi 86 Rap porteur: Jules Vellum
From page 87...
... ._, _ =_ _ _ ~ ~, _ _ _ Second, the institution has a responsibility to promote an atom sphere that encourages the performance of good quality work, with adequate supervision of young investigators and opportunities for their interaction Fend socialization into the moral principles as well as the methods of science. Similarly, there should be a mechanism for the institution to Fire itself am others that this atmosphere exists and that the Interactions among senior and junior fact and trainees promote the responsible conduct of reach.
From page 88...
... The panel considered whether individuals were adequately reviewed with regard to their ethical as well as their scientific qualifications. AM - Personality defects of varying seriousness usually play a significant and perhaps dominant role in cases of scientific misconduct.
From page 89...
... The panel suggested that the faculty of a selected institution should develop the criteria that affect their 'appointment Fond advancement decisions. If different institutions adopt significantly different guidelines, a broader consensus will need to be achieved to change the existing criteria used by funding agencies to predict productivity and quality.
From page 90...
... These often include little or no formal research training before faculty appointment and inadquate research time following appointment. The panel believed these problems promote sloppy or inaccurate reearch' bad authorship practi ~ ~ and even misconduct.
From page 91...
... m e panel considered with favor a proposal that each co-author should sign a statement confirming approval of a final manuscript and concurring in the designation of authors as part of the submission of the manuscript to scientific journals. The value of an additional confirmation statement by a university official seemed superfluous.
From page 92...
... The panel suggested that this important area deserved careful analysis, separate from the study of other research practices, and that this analysis should precede the development of institutional guidelines and 5t3ndar~5. Finally, the panel considered the importance of collaborative efforts in modern research.
From page 93...
... Readers may have difficulty deciding on the uniqueness of the content of a particular paper. The panel considered several possible solutions to this practice, including the need for editors to define repetitive publication explicitly, to state penalties for violations, to find means of informing readers of occurrences, and to consider other possible means of prevention such as maintenance of a "blacklist" for a jourr~l's own use.
From page 94...
... What disadvantages Bight result form institutional screening? Panel members indicated that a few academic departments and research units do screen manuscripts of their faculty and staff.
From page 95...
... Authors should be expected' however, to submit a~;tior~al data for an editor or pew reviewer if resect for critical joints. The panel believed oft routine relents for submission of s~l~ntary data with papers would put Inns administrative }dens on Me journal editors.
From page 96...
... Misconduct in research can suggest evidence of governmental mismanagement of public funds. The panel suggested that government can provide incentives and apply pressure for the responsible conduct of research.
From page 97...
... ~ a responsible namer. me ~ ~a <~ fear institutional and journal pros related to authorship ark publication practices.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.