Fostering Integrity in Research (2017) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
8 Exploring New Approaches
8 Exploring New Approaches
Pages 147-160
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 147... ...
Synopsis: This chapter reviews the benefits and costs of improved approaches to addressing research misconduct and detrimental research practices and explores several new approaches considered by the committee. COSTS AND BENEFITS OF IMPROVED APPROACHES Chapter 5 discusses the costs and consequences of research misconduct and detrimental research practices (DRPs)
|
From page 148... ...
research enterprise as stakeholders seek to foster integrity and address research misconduct and DRPs. These include weaknesses and gaps in policies and capabilities for identifying, investigating, and addressing research misconduct; the need to develop and uphold updated research standards and practices in areas such as data sharing in response to technological advances; and the need for evidence-based
|
From page 149... ...
Effectively addressing the scientific and legal issues raised by research misconduct cases may require specialized knowledge and sensitivity. Institutional investigations can also get sidetracked when concerns about potentially bad publicity for the institution or personal relationships become considerations.
|
From page 150... ...
The body that was recommended in Responsible Science was expected to perform several functions, including the development of model practices, policies, and procedures for the community; the collection and analysis of data on allegations of misconduct; and the conduct of periodic studies of policies and approaches for fostering research integrity and addressing research misconduct and questionable research
|
From page 151... ...
. The RIAB recommended by this committee perform some functions that are similar to those anticipated earlier, with adjustments and details altered to incorporate the experience of the past several decades and to account for the contemporary context: • Work with public and private research sponsors to develop improved practices and approaches to addressing research misconduct and fostering integrity.
|
From page 152... ...
Funding would come in the form of regular contributions from members such as the major public and private sponsors of research (NSF, NIH, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and others) , universities and other research institutions, industrial members, scientific societies, and science, engineering, technology, and medical journal and book publishers.
|
From page 153... ...
The status quo approach would guarantee that the research enterprise and its components do not have a mechanism that facilitates improved performance over time. It also means that there would be no organizational focus on lowering the risk that future research misconduct cases and detrimental research practices will cause serious damage to the enterprise in terms of lost credibility, wasted resources, harms to research subjects, and a slower advance of knowledge.
|
From page 154... ...
STRENGTHENING AUTHORSHIP STANDARDS AND PRACTICES What additional steps should stakeholders in the research enterprise take to address the challenges discussed in Chapter 7? For example, how should detrimental research practices related to authorship, such as coercive authorship, gift authorship, and unacknowledged ghost authorship, be discouraged and reduced?
|
From page 155... ...
Universal adoption of the requirement that all authorship roles be disclosed, as is the case for a growing number of journals, and commitment to the principle that all contributors who merit authorship should be listed would also be positive steps. A Framework for Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Authorship Standards As discussed above, a number of scientific societies, journals, associations, and research institutions have developed or updated their authorship criteria and guidelines in recent years.
|
From page 156... ...
The committee believes that the widespread development and dissemination of such standards will make a significant contribution to research integrity, and urges the research enterprise to continue and accelerate progress. The following framework for developing authorship standards outlines several baseline requirements and might be useful to disciplines that are developing or updating their standards.
|
From page 157... ...
As covered above in the discussion considering whether forms of authorship misrepresentation other than plagiarism should be included in a revised federal research misconduct definition, developing a uniform authorship standard that would be meaningful and at the same time applicable to current conditions in all fields and disciplines would be impractical and probably counterproductive. Another alternative would be to move away from the concept of authorship entirely toward a new principle for assigning credit and responsibility for reported research.
|
From page 158... ...
Writing -- original draft Creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically preparation writing the initial draft (including substantive translation)
|
From page 159... ...
They can help improve the transparency and accuracy of how credit and accountability for scientific work are assigned and recognized. The committee decided not to recommend that the research enterprise adopt the contributorship concept at this time, due to concern about including traditional author roles and other contributions within a single framework.
|
Key Terms
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.