Scientific integrity and the market for lemons

Research Ethics 10 (1):1747016113494651 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Scientific integrity cannot be adequately ensured by appeals to the ethical principles of individual researchers. Research fraud has become a public scandal, exacerbated by our inability accurately to judge its extent. Current reliance on peer review of articles ready for publication as the sole means to control the quality and integrity of the majority of research has been shown to be inadequate, partly because faults in the research process may be concealed and partly because anonymous peer review is itself imperfect. Consequently, the scientific literature is mixed, with the reader unable always to distinguish the good articles from the bad. Scientific research is subject to market forces that will always provide a motivation for a range of misdemeanours. This has led to a ‘market for lemons’. Regulations, and sanctions against miscreants, need to be modelled on those historically found necessary to limit financial fraud. Practical and effective systems of process control and audit have already been devised to ensure the integrity of clinical and pre-clinical research. These should be adapted for use in a much wider range of research activities

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

An introduction to research ethics.Paul J. Friedman - 1996 - Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (4):443-456.
The Epistemic Integrity of Scientific Research.Jan Winter & Laszlo Kosolosky - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3):757-774.
The Epistemic Integrity of Scientific Research.Jan De Winter & Laszlo Kosolosky - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3):757-774.
Co-responsibility for research integrity.Carl Mitcham - 2003 - Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):273-290.
The american experience: Lessons learned. [REVIEW]Lawrence J. Rhoades - 2000 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (1):95-107.
The legacy of the Hwang case: Research misconduct in biosciences.Péter Kakuk - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4):545-562.
Scientific misconduct: Present problems and future trends.Barbara Mishkin - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):283-292.
Honest research.Dr Harold Hillman - 1995 - Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (1):49-58.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-12-01

Downloads
70 (#229,266)

6 months
2 (#1,232,442)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Add more references