研究数据管理不当--从有问题的研究实践到研究不当行为。

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-14 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2022.2157268
Nicole Shu Ling Yeo-Teh, Bor Luen Tang
{"title":"研究数据管理不当--从有问题的研究实践到研究不当行为。","authors":"Nicole Shu Ling Yeo-Teh, Bor Luen Tang","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2157268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Good record keeping practice and research data management underlie responsible research conduct and promote reproducibility of research findings in the sciences. In many cases of research misconduct, inadequate research data management frequently appear as an accompanying finding. Findings of disorganized or otherwise poor data archival or loss of research data are, on their own, not usually considered as indicative of research misconduct. Focusing on the availability of raw/primary data and the replicability of research based on these, we posit that most, if not all, instances of research data mismanagement (RDMM) could be considered a questionable research practice (QRP). Furthermore, instances of RDMM at their worst could indeed be viewed as acts of research misconduct. Here, we analyze with postulated scenarios the contexts and circumstances under which RDMM could be viewed as a significant misrepresentation of research (ie. falsification), or data fabrication. We further explore how RDMM might potentially be adjudicated as research misconduct based on intent and consequences. Defining how RDMM could constitute QRP or research misconduct would aid the formulation of relevant institutional research integrity policies to mitigate undesirable events stemming from RDMM.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"706-713"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research data mismanagement - from questionable research practice to research misconduct.\",\"authors\":\"Nicole Shu Ling Yeo-Teh, Bor Luen Tang\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2022.2157268\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Good record keeping practice and research data management underlie responsible research conduct and promote reproducibility of research findings in the sciences. In many cases of research misconduct, inadequate research data management frequently appear as an accompanying finding. Findings of disorganized or otherwise poor data archival or loss of research data are, on their own, not usually considered as indicative of research misconduct. Focusing on the availability of raw/primary data and the replicability of research based on these, we posit that most, if not all, instances of research data mismanagement (RDMM) could be considered a questionable research practice (QRP). Furthermore, instances of RDMM at their worst could indeed be viewed as acts of research misconduct. Here, we analyze with postulated scenarios the contexts and circumstances under which RDMM could be viewed as a significant misrepresentation of research (ie. falsification), or data fabrication. We further explore how RDMM might potentially be adjudicated as research misconduct based on intent and consequences. Defining how RDMM could constitute QRP or research misconduct would aid the formulation of relevant institutional research integrity policies to mitigate undesirable events stemming from RDMM.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"706-713\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2157268\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2157268","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

良好的记录保存做法和研究数据管理是负责任的研究行为的基础,并能促进科学研究 成果的可复制性。在许多研究不当行为案件中,研究数据管理不善往往是伴随的调查结果。研究数据归档混乱或数据丢失,通常不会被视为研究不当行为的标志。我们将重点放在原始数据/主要数据的可用性以及基于这些数据的研究的可复制性上,因此我们认为,即使不是所有的研究数据管理不当 (RDMM) 情况,也可以将其视为有问题的研究实践 (QRP)。此外,最严重的研究数据管理不当(RDMM)也可能被视为研究不当行为。在此,我们通过假设情景分析了 RDMM 可被视为严重歪曲研究(即造假)或数据捏造的背景和情况。我们进一步探讨了如何根据意图和后果将 RDMM 判定为研究不当行为。定义 RDMM 如何构成 QRP 或研究不当行为,将有助于制定相关的机构研究诚信政策,以减少 RDMM 引发的不良事件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Research data mismanagement - from questionable research practice to research misconduct.

Good record keeping practice and research data management underlie responsible research conduct and promote reproducibility of research findings in the sciences. In many cases of research misconduct, inadequate research data management frequently appear as an accompanying finding. Findings of disorganized or otherwise poor data archival or loss of research data are, on their own, not usually considered as indicative of research misconduct. Focusing on the availability of raw/primary data and the replicability of research based on these, we posit that most, if not all, instances of research data mismanagement (RDMM) could be considered a questionable research practice (QRP). Furthermore, instances of RDMM at their worst could indeed be viewed as acts of research misconduct. Here, we analyze with postulated scenarios the contexts and circumstances under which RDMM could be viewed as a significant misrepresentation of research (ie. falsification), or data fabrication. We further explore how RDMM might potentially be adjudicated as research misconduct based on intent and consequences. Defining how RDMM could constitute QRP or research misconduct would aid the formulation of relevant institutional research integrity policies to mitigate undesirable events stemming from RDMM.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
期刊最新文献
Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity. A policy toolkit for authorship and dissemination policies may benefit NIH research consortia. A randomized trial alerting authors, with or without coauthors or editors, that research they cited in systematic reviews and guidelines has been retracted. Citation bias, diversity, and ethics. Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics.
×
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