Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Criminalization of Scientific Misconduct.William Bülow & Gert Helgesson - 2019 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 22 (2):245-252.
    This paper discusses the criminalization of scientific misconduct, as discussed and defended in the bioethics literature. In doing so it argues against the claim that fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) together identify the most serious forms of misconduct, which hence ought to be criminalized, whereas other forms of misconduct should not. Drawing the line strictly at FFP is problematic both in terms of what is included and what is excluded. It is also argued that the criminalization of scientific misconduct, despite (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Disclosing Academic Dishonesty: Perspectives From Nigerian and New Zealand Health Professional Students.Ukachukwu Okoroafor Abaraogu, Marcus A. Henning, Michael Chibuike Okpara & Vijay Rajput - 2016 - Ethics and Behavior 26 (5):431-447.
    Few cross-national studies have been conducted on academic dishonesty. The aim of this study was to explore students’ disclosed levels of academic dishonesty between New Zealand and Nigeria. The measures obtained included incidence, acceptability, and justification of dishonest action. It was hypothesized that there would be differences between the two groups and that differences could be explained in terms of deontology, cultural relativism, utilitarianism, rational fair exchange, and/or response bias. There were 844 medical and health science students who participated in (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • What Crisis? Management Researchers’ Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct.Christian Hopp & Gary A. Hoover - forthcoming - Science and Engineering Ethics:1-40.
    This research presents the results of a survey regarding scientific misconduct and questionable research practices elicited from a sample of 1215 management researchers. We find that misconduct is not encountered often by reviewers nor editors. Yet, there is a strong prevalence of misrepresentations. When it comes to potential methodological improvements, those that are skeptical about the empirical body of work being published see merit in replication studies. Yet, a sizeable majority of editors and authors eschew open data policies, which points (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark