Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research.
This paper explores the gray area of questionable research practices (QRPs) between responsible conduct of research and severe research misconduct in the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (Steneck in SEE 12(1): 53–57, 2006). Up until now, we have had very little knowledge of discipl...
| Publicado en: | Science & Engineering Ethics Vol. 27; no. 4; pp. 1 - 34 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Aug2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=150935311&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 150935311 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 13533452 GNI jtl: Science & Engineering Ethics issn: 13533452 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Aug2021 vid: 27 iid: 4 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 150935311 10.1007/s11948-021-00310-z ppf: 1 ppct: 33 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 672KB tig: atl: Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research. aug: au: Ravn, Tine Sørensen, Mads P. affil: Department of Political Science, The Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark su: Falsification of data Technical reports Acquisition of data Data analysis Medical sciences sug: subj: Falsification of data Technical reports Acquisition of data Data analysis Medical sciences keyword: Disciplinary differences Epistemic culture QRP Research integrity Research Misconduct Responsible conduct of research ab: This paper explores the gray area of questionable research practices (QRPs) between responsible conduct of research and severe research misconduct in the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (Steneck in SEE 12(1): 53–57, 2006). Up until now, we have had very little knowledge of disciplinary similarities and differences in QRPs. The paper is the first systematic account of variances and similarities. It reports on the findings of a comprehensive study comprising 22 focus groups on practices and perceptions of QRPs across main areas of research. The paper supports the relevance of the idea of epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina in: Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1999), also when it comes to QRPs. It shows which QRPs researchers from different areas of research (humanities, social sciences, medical sciences, natural sciences, and technical sciences) report as the most severe and prevalent within their fields. Furthermore, it shows where in the research process these self-reported QRPs can be found. This is done by using a five-phase analytical model of the research process (idea generation, research design, data collection, data analysis, scientific publication and reporting). The paper shows that QRPs are closely connected to the distinct research practices within the different areas of research. Many QRPs can therefore only be found within one area of research, and QRPs that cut across main areas often cover relatively different practices. In a few cases, QRPs in one area are considered good research practice in another. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Science & Engineering Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved. item: Science & Engineering Ethics holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2021 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|