Social, Behavioral Scientists Eligible to Apply for NSF S-STEM Grants
Solicitations are now being sought for the National Science Foundation’s Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics program, and in an unheralded […]
Imagine an ethics review system where the researcher’s proposal is read by an ‘ethics jury’ of four to six researchers drawn, as in legal juries, from the academic population at large, suggests Australia’s Gigi Foster.
Writing about her experiences in Australia, Gigi Foster wonders if ethics boards are more interested in ticking the necessary boxes and not upholding the standards that supposedly underlie the boards’ existence.
High-quality scientific literature is the cornerstone of scientific progress and is highly regarded by academia. However, Ritesh G. Menezes and his colleagues write in the Medico-Legal Journal, scientific literature is often marred by plagiarism, data fabrication and falsification, redundant publication and illegitimate authorship.
A survey by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics suggests that researchers appreciate the benefits of competition but also fear how it can emphasize prestige over quality
Authorship of an article seems like it ought to be straightforward, but of course it’s not. Even with greater scrutiny, abuse of the process — both adding the wrong people and subtracting the right ones — continues.
Looking specifically at Australia, the author of the book on research integrity wonders how rampant plagiarizing and fabricating may be among researchers.
The author of a book on research ethics for social scientists suggests that issues such as antagonism with university review boards and new complexities introduced by Big Data can make integrity a sometime elusive quality.
We want decisions to be based on data and evidence and not ideology or gut feelings. But being presented with research results only starts the process of understanding what to draw from it.