Defining and Handling Research Misconduct: A Comparison Between Chinese and European Institutional Policies.
FFP
comparative study
research integrity
research misconduct
university policies
Journal
Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE
ISSN: 1556-2654
Titre abrégé: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101273949
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
3
7
2020
medline:
18
9
2021
entrez:
3
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Research institutions are responsible for promoting research integrity and handling allegations of research misconduct. Due to various cultural and social contexts, institutional policies from different cultural backgrounds exhibit many differences, such as their primary concern and mechanisms for dealing with allegations of research misconduct. This comparative study analyses research misconduct policies from 21 Chinese and 22 European universities. The results show that definitions of research misconduct from all retrieved policies go beyond fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism but include different types of questionable research practices. Their procedures for handling research misconduct differ in, for example, confidentiality and disclosure of conflict of interest. Differences can also be found in their governance approaches ("bottom-up" versus "top-down").
Identifiants
pubmed: 32613889
doi: 10.1177/1556264620927628
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM