如何(不)在研究中被问责:荷兰诚信守则的案例。

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2022.2115888
Hans Radder
{"title":"如何(不)在研究中被问责:荷兰诚信守则的案例。","authors":"Hans Radder","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2115888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The article starts with a concise explanation of the nature and role of values and norms. I emphasize the ethical and political importance of making explicit how values are interpreted and which norms are taken to advance them in concrete situations. Next, I apply this account in a critical examination of the recent <i>Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity</i>. The conclusion is that this code is based on a flawed conception and an inadequate analysis of the nature and role of values and norms in science. Finally, I briefly sketch how the defects of the integrity code might be remedied by developing policies based on the broader notion of the public interest of science.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":"30 5","pages":"261-275"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How (not) to be held accountable in research: The case of the Dutch integrity code.\",\"authors\":\"Hans Radder\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2022.2115888\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The article starts with a concise explanation of the nature and role of values and norms. I emphasize the ethical and political importance of making explicit how values are interpreted and which norms are taken to advance them in concrete situations. Next, I apply this account in a critical examination of the recent <i>Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity</i>. The conclusion is that this code is based on a flawed conception and an inadequate analysis of the nature and role of values and norms in science. Finally, I briefly sketch how the defects of the integrity code might be remedied by developing policies based on the broader notion of the public interest of science.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\"30 5\",\"pages\":\"261-275\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2115888\",\"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/10.1080/08989621.2022.2115888","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: 2

摘要

本文首先对价值观和规范的性质和作用作了简明的解释。我强调明确如何解释价值观以及在具体情况下采取哪些规范来促进价值观的道德和政治重要性。接下来,我将运用这一理论对最近颁布的《荷兰研究诚信行为准则》进行批判性审查。结论是,这个准则是基于一个有缺陷的概念,以及对科学中的价值和规范的性质和作用的不充分分析。最后,我简要概述了诚信准则的缺陷是如何通过制定基于科学公共利益这一更广泛概念的政策来弥补的。
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
How (not) to be held accountable in research: The case of the Dutch integrity code.

The article starts with a concise explanation of the nature and role of values and norms. I emphasize the ethical and political importance of making explicit how values are interpreted and which norms are taken to advance them in concrete situations. Next, I apply this account in a critical examination of the recent Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. The conclusion is that this code is based on a flawed conception and an inadequate analysis of the nature and role of values and norms in science. Finally, I briefly sketch how the defects of the integrity code might be remedied by developing policies based on the broader notion of the public interest of science.

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