An Analysis on the Research Ethics Cases Managed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Between 1997 and 2010
Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (4):621-631 (2012)
|Abstract||The growing emphasis on the importance of publishing scientific findings in the academic world has led to increasing prevalence of potentially significant publications in which scientific and ethical rigour may be questioned. This has not only hindered research progress, but also eroded public trust in all scientific advances. In view of the increasing concern and the complexity of research misconduct, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was established in 1997 to manage cases with ethical implications. In order to review the outcomes of cases investigated by COPE, a total of 408 cases that had been managed by COPE were successfully extracted and analysed with respect to 7 distinct criteria. The results obtained indicate that the number of ethical implications per case has not changed significantly (p > 0.01) since the year COPE was instigated. Interestingly, the number of ethical cases, and to some extent, research misconduct, is not diminishing. Therefore, journal editors and publishers need to work closely together with COPE to inculcate adoption of appropriate research ethics and values in younger researchers while discouraging others from lowering standards. It is hoped that with a more concerted effort from the academic community and better public awareness, there will be fewer incidences of ethically and scientifically challenged publications. The ultimate aim being to enhance the quality of published works with concomittant public trust in the results.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Patricia K. Woolf (1991). Accountability and Responsibility in Research. Journal of Business Ethics 10 (8):595 - 600.
Brad F. Mellon (2007). Learning to Cope with Ambiguity. Journal of Philosophical Research 32:291-297.
Diane M. McKnight (1998). Scientific Societies and Whistleblowers: The Relationship Between the Community and the Individual. Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1).
Livia Puljak (2007). Croatia Founded a National Body for Ethics in Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (2).
Krishna Regmi (2011). Ethical and Legal Issues in Publication and Dissemination of Scholarly Knowledge: A Summary of the Published Evidence. Journal of Academic Ethics 9 (1):71-81.
Teresa Moore & Kristy Richardson (forthcoming). The Low Risk Research Ethics Application Process at CQUniversity Australia. Journal of Academic Ethics:1-20.
David Shaw (2011). The Ethics Committee as Ghost Author. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (12):706-706.
Geert Demuijnck (2009). From an Implicit Christian Corporate Culture to a Structured Conception of Corporate Ethical Responsibility in a Retail Company: A Case-Study in Hermeneutic Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 84:387-404.
Adil E. Shamoo (2009). Responsible Conduct of Research. Oxford University Press.
Daniel Andersen (2000). From Case Management to Prevention of Scientific Dishonesty in Denmark. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):25-34.
Gary Fuller (2007). PVS and the Terri Schiavo Case. Journal of Philosophical Research 32:299-303.
Péter Kakuk (2009). The Legacy of the Hwang Case: Research Misconduct in Biosciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4).
Christine Halse (2011). Confessions of an Ethics Committee Chair. Ethics and Education 6 (3):239 - 251.
Sergio Sismondo & Mathieu Doucet (2009). Publication Ethics and the Ghost Management of Medical Publication. Bioethics 24 (6):273-283.
Barbara Mishkin (1999). Scientific Misconduct: Present Problems and Future Trends. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):283-292.
Added to index2011-05-04
Total downloads7 ( #133,421 of 549,065 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,252 of 549,065 )
How can I increase my downloads?