防止有问题的研究实践的制度方法。

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2021.1986017
Jesse D Troy, Frank Rockhold, Gregory P Samsa
{"title":"防止有问题的研究实践的制度方法。","authors":"Jesse D Troy,&nbsp;Frank Rockhold,&nbsp;Gregory P Samsa","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2021.1986017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Questionable research practices (QRP) are actions taken by researchers that span a range of concern related to violation of research best practices, and ultimately expose institutions and research participants to risk. Numerous studies have shown that QRP are common. The continued prevalence of QRP indicates that existing approaches for dealing with QRP are falling short. In this editorial we discuss the risks associated with QRP and propose mitigation strategies at the institutional level using a common QRP as an example, questionable treatment of subgroup analyses. We argue that the need for institutional intervention in cases such as this are particularly motivating when both the investigator and the institution have a substantial financial conflict of interest related to intellectual property that requires the investigator's expertise to continue developing. To address this, we propose an expansion of the traditional conflict of interest management process.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":"30 4","pages":"252-259"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Institutional approaches to preventing questionable research practices.\",\"authors\":\"Jesse D Troy,&nbsp;Frank Rockhold,&nbsp;Gregory P Samsa\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2021.1986017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Questionable research practices (QRP) are actions taken by researchers that span a range of concern related to violation of research best practices, and ultimately expose institutions and research participants to risk. Numerous studies have shown that QRP are common. The continued prevalence of QRP indicates that existing approaches for dealing with QRP are falling short. In this editorial we discuss the risks associated with QRP and propose mitigation strategies at the institutional level using a common QRP as an example, questionable treatment of subgroup analyses. We argue that the need for institutional intervention in cases such as this are particularly motivating when both the investigator and the institution have a substantial financial conflict of interest related to intellectual property that requires the investigator's expertise to continue developing. To address this, we propose an expansion of the traditional conflict of interest management process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\"30 4\",\"pages\":\"252-259\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1986017\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"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/10.1080/08989621.2021.1986017","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

有问题的研究实践(QRP)是研究人员采取的一系列与违反研究最佳实践相关的行动,最终使机构和研究参与者面临风险。大量研究表明QRP是常见的。QRP的持续流行表明现有的处理QRP的方法是不足的。在这篇社论中,我们讨论了与QRP相关的风险,并以一个常见的QRP为例,提出了机构层面的缓解策略,对亚组分析的可疑处理。我们认为,当研究者和研究机构都存在与知识产权相关的重大经济利益冲突,需要研究者的专业知识继续发展时,对此类案件的机构干预的需求尤其具有激励作用。为了解决这个问题,我们建议扩展传统的利益冲突管理流程。
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
Institutional approaches to preventing questionable research practices.

Questionable research practices (QRP) are actions taken by researchers that span a range of concern related to violation of research best practices, and ultimately expose institutions and research participants to risk. Numerous studies have shown that QRP are common. The continued prevalence of QRP indicates that existing approaches for dealing with QRP are falling short. In this editorial we discuss the risks associated with QRP and propose mitigation strategies at the institutional level using a common QRP as an example, questionable treatment of subgroup analyses. We argue that the need for institutional intervention in cases such as this are particularly motivating when both the investigator and the institution have a substantial financial conflict of interest related to intellectual property that requires the investigator's expertise to continue developing. To address this, we propose an expansion of the traditional conflict of interest management process.

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