Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Research misconduct among clinical trial staff.Barbara K. Redman, Thomas N. Templin & Jon F. Merz - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3):481-489.
    Between 1993 and 2002, 39 clinical trial staff were investigated for scientific misconduct by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Analysis of ORI case records reveals practices regarding workload, training and supervision that enable misconduct. Considering the potential effects on human subjects protection, quality and reliability of data, and the trustworthiness of the clinical research enterprise, regulations or guidance on use of clinical trial staff ought to be available. Current ORI regulations do not hold investigators or institutions responsible for supervision (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Commentary on “an analytical hierarchy process model to apportion co-author responsibility”.Michael C. Loui - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3):567-570.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Scientific misconduct and science ethics: A case study based approach.Luca Consoli - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3):533-541.
    The Schön misconduct case has been widely publicized in the media and has sparked intense discussions within and outside the scientific community about general issues of science ethics. This paper analyses the Report of the official Committee charged with the investigation in order to show that what at first seems to be a quite uncontroversial case, turns out to be an accumulation of many interesting and non-trivial questions (of both ethical and philosophical interest). In particular, the paper intends to show (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • An analytic hierarchy process model to apportion co-author responsibility.Theodore J. Sheskin - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3):555-565.
    The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) can be used to determine co-author responsibility for a scientific paper describing collaborative research. The objective is to deter scientific fraud by holding co-authors accountable for their individual contributions. A hiearchical model of the research presented in a paper can be created by dividing it into primary and secondary elements. The co-authors then determine the contributions of the primary and secondary elements to the work as a whole as well as their own individual contributions. They (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research.Dena K. Plemmons, Suzanne A. Brody & Michael W. Kalichman - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3):571-582.
    Responsible conduct of research courses are widely taught, but little is known about the purposes or effectiveness of such courses. As one way to assess the purposes of these courses, students were surveyed about their perspectives after recent completion of one of eleven different research ethics courses at ten different institutions. Participants enrolled in RCR courses in spring and fall of 2003 received a voluntary, anonymous survey from their instructors at the completion of the course. Responses were received from 268 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • Duplicate publication and 'paper inflation' in the fractals literature.Dr Ronald N. Kostoff, Dustin Johnson, J. Antonio Del Rio, Louis A. Bloomfield, Michael F. Shlesinger, Guido Malpohl & Hector D. Cortes - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3):543-554.
    The similarity of documents in a large database of published Fractals articles was examined for redundancy. Three different text matching techniques were used on publisheds to identify redundancy candidates, and predictions were verified by reading full text versions of the redundancy candidate articles. A small fraction of the total articles in the database was judged to be redundant. This was viewed as a lower limit, because it excluded cases where the concepts remained the same, but the text was altered substantially.Far (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Duplicate publication and ‘paper inflation’ in the fractals literature.Ronald N. Kostoff, Dustin Johnson, J. Antonio Del Rio, Louis A. Bloomfield, Michael F. Shlesinger, Guido Malpohl & Hector D. Cortes - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3):543-554.
    The similarity of documents in a large database of published Fractals articles was examined for redundancy. Three different text matching techniques were used on published Abstracts to identify redundancy candidates, and predictions were verified by reading full text versions of the redundancy candidate articles. A small fraction of the total articles in the database was judged to be redundant. This was viewed as a lower limit, because it excluded cases where the concepts remained the same, but the text was altered (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations