The definition of research misconduct should be stated in the abstract when reporting research on research misconduct

被引:0
|
作者
Dal-Re, Rafael [1 ,4 ]
Marusic, Ana [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Autonoma Madrid, Fdn Jimenez Diaz Univ Hosp, Hlth Res Inst, Epidemiol Unit, Madrid, Spain
[2] Univ Split, Ctr Evidence Based Med, Sch Med, Split, Croatia
[3] Univ Split, Sch Med, Dept Res Biomed & Hlth, Split, Croatia
[4] Univ Autonoma Madrid, Hosp Univ Fdn Jimenez Diaz, Unidad Epidemiol, Inst Invest Sanitaria, Avda Reyes Catolicos 2, E-28040 Madrid, Spain
关键词
Research misconduct; fraud; scientific misconduct; European code of research integrity; definition; RETRACTIONS;
D O I
10.1080/08989621.2024.2306538
中图分类号
R-052 [医学伦理学];
学科分类号
0101 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Research integrity is the cornerstone for a reliable and trustworthy science. Research misconduct is classically defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. To be considered as such, the action must have been committed with the intent to mislead or deceive. There are many other research misbehaviors such as duplication, fake-peer review or lack of disclosure of conflicts of interest, that are often included in the definition of research misconduct in codes, policies, and professional documents. The definition of research misconduct varies among countries and institutions, the seriousness and intentionality of the action. This variability is also present in research articles on the prevalence of research misconduct because it is common for each author to use a different definition, creating confusion for readers. We argue that the definition of research misconduct used in a study should be stated already in the abstract, particularly because not all publications are in open access, so that readers can fully understand what the study found concerning research misconduct without needing to have access to the full article.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Definition of Research Misconduct
    Awais, Syed Muhammad
    [J]. ANNALS OF KING EDWARD MEDICAL UNIVERSITY LAHORE PAKISTAN, 2013, 19 (02): : 114 - 114
  • [2] Definition of Research Misconduct: Problem on "Definition" or "User"?
    Wiwanitkit, Somsri
    Wiwanitkit, Viroj
    [J]. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, 2014, 20 (02) : 615 - 615
  • [3] Definition of Research Misconduct: Problem on “Definition” or “User”?
    Somsri Wiwanitkit
    Viroj Wiwanitkit
    [J]. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2014, 20 : 615 - 615
  • [4] Is it time to revise the definition of research misconduct?
    Resnik, David B.
    [J]. ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, 2019, 26 (02): : 123 - 137
  • [5] Preparing Whistleblowers for Reporting Research Misconduct
    Bonito, Arthur J.
    Titus, Sandra L.
    Greene, Angela M.
    Amoozegar, Jacqueline
    Eicheldinger, Celia
    Wright, David E.
    [J]. ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, 2012, 19 (05): : 308 - 328
  • [6] Reporting Research Misconduct in the Medical Literature
    Steinbrook, Robert
    Redberg, Rita F.
    [J]. JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2015, 175 (04) : 492 - 493
  • [7] Research misconduct?: What misconduct?
    Kondro, Wayne
    Hebert, Paul C.
    Hebert, Paul C.
    Attaran, Amir
    MacDonald, Noni
    Flegel, Ken
    [J]. CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2007, 176 (07) : 905 - 905
  • [8] Research misconduct
    Moran, G
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION ETHICS, 1999, 8 (02) : 76 - 78
  • [9] Research misconduct
    Jones, R
    [J]. FAMILY PRACTICE, 2002, 19 (02) : 123 - 124
  • [10] Research misconduct
    Raub, WF
    [J]. HEAD AND NECK-JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENCES AND SPECIALTIES OF THE HEAD AND NECK, 2001, 23 (02): : 71 - 72