A Critical Analysis of Falsification as Fraud

Q3 Arts and Humanities Ethics in Progress Pub Date : 2024-07-12 DOI:10.14746/eip.2024.1.9
La Shun L. Carroll, B.A., D.D.S., Ed.M.
{"title":"A Critical Analysis of Falsification as Fraud","authors":"La Shun L. Carroll, B.A., D.D.S., Ed.M.","doi":"10.14746/eip.2024.1.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper critically evaluates the classification of research-related fraudulent activities, with an emphasis on the specific misconduct falsification. The analysis begins by interrogating the assumption that all acts of fraud in research are intentional, suggesting that some instances may inadvertently arise during the course of scholarly activities. Misconducts like fabrication and falsification are categorized as fraudulent primarily due to their generation during research activities and their direct contribution to the distortion of scientific knowledge. Plagiarism, while deceptive, does not necessarily originate from the research process nor lead directly to such distortion, and therefore is not classified as de facto fraud. The paper proposes that the definition of falsification – as established by the PHS – requires refinement to prevent wrongful allegations and convictions, enhance transparency, and offer clearer guidelines. This nuanced understanding is vital for safeguarding the credibility of the research process and protecting scientists from unfounded career-damaging accusations. Ultimately, this paper advocates for a clearer definition of falsification to protect the integrity of scientific research and prevent the miscarriage of justice.","PeriodicalId":36100,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Progress","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics in Progress","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/eip.2024.1.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper critically evaluates the classification of research-related fraudulent activities, with an emphasis on the specific misconduct falsification. The analysis begins by interrogating the assumption that all acts of fraud in research are intentional, suggesting that some instances may inadvertently arise during the course of scholarly activities. Misconducts like fabrication and falsification are categorized as fraudulent primarily due to their generation during research activities and their direct contribution to the distortion of scientific knowledge. Plagiarism, while deceptive, does not necessarily originate from the research process nor lead directly to such distortion, and therefore is not classified as de facto fraud. The paper proposes that the definition of falsification – as established by the PHS – requires refinement to prevent wrongful allegations and convictions, enhance transparency, and offer clearer guidelines. This nuanced understanding is vital for safeguarding the credibility of the research process and protecting scientists from unfounded career-damaging accusations. Ultimately, this paper advocates for a clearer definition of falsification to protect the integrity of scientific research and prevent the miscarriage of justice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对作为欺诈的篡改行为的批判性分析
本文批判性地评估了与研究有关的欺诈活动的分类,重点是具体的不当造假行为。分析首先对 "研究中的所有欺诈行为都是蓄意的 "这一假设提出质疑,认为有些情况可能是在学术活动过程中无意中产生的。编造和篡改等不当行为之所以被归类为欺诈行为,主要是因为它们产生于研究活动中,并直接导致了科学知识的扭曲。剽窃虽然具有欺骗性,但不一定源于研究过程,也不一定直接导致这种歪曲,因此不被归类为事实上的欺诈。本文提出,《公共卫生法》对篡改的定义需要细化,以防止错误指控和定罪,提高透明度,并提供更明确的指导原则。这种细致入微的理解对于维护研究过程的可信度和保护科学家免受毫无根据的职业损害指控至关重要。最终,本文主张对造假进行更明确的定义,以保护科学研究的诚信,防止司法不公。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics in Progress
Ethics in Progress Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Comparative Study of Middle School’s Ethical Climate in Indonesia Culture, Development and Adolescence – towards a Theory and History of Adolescence ChatGPT as Co-Author? AI and Research Ethics A Critical Analysis of Falsification as Fraud Russia’s War in Ukraine as a “War for Identity” and Appropriation of Cultural Tradition
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1