刍议学术不端行为及其监督惩戒

文章界定了学术不端行为并做出分类,认为学术不端行为由主体、不端行为和过错构成,认定学术不端行为需要解决认定学术不端行为的组织问题和程序问题。文章建议设立国家学术不端监督惩戒委员会、科研资金资助机构学术不端监督惩戒委员会、学术单位学术不端监督惩戒委员会等为一体的学术不端监督惩戒组织体系,完善学术不端行为的调查程序,对学术不端行为的各种责任通过立法予以统一,从而完善学术不端行为监督惩戒机制,重建学术诚信。     

试析我国学术不端行为的特点及治理

近年来我国学术不端频发,对于学术界的正常科学研究和社会声誉造成了严重冲击。我国近期的学术不端行为具有发生数量多、社会影响大、类型多样、认同程度高等特点。造成这种局面的原因既有少数科学人员自身的原因,也有社会因素的影响,但最为根本的则是科研管理的制度缺陷。学术不端行为的有效治理需要从这三方面入手,尤其要重视制度的完善。     

近十年国内学者关于学术越轨问题的研究综述

学术越轨囊括了学术失范、学术不端和学术腐败的内容,表现为情节轻重不一的违反学术规范、违背科学精神和科学规律的行为。学术越轨的诱发因素包括学术“马太效应”,学术评价体制不完善,学术行政化,学术道德失律,图书馆、期刊社、出版社的不作为以及越轨行为低成本化等。学术越轨不仅影响学者的学术水平和学术声誉,还会损害高校、科研院所的形象和声誉,影响学术界的发展,阻碍社会前进的步伐。防治学术越轨,不仅要实现学术约束机制化、职业伦理制度化、评价体系完善化、终端系统功能化,还要防范研究生的学术越轨行为。目前,关于学术越轨的相关概念尚未达成共识,对学术越轨的防治方法研究不足,研究深度不够。     

教育部颁文加强学术道德建设

2006年5月10日,教育部发出《关于树立社会主义荣辱观,进一步加强学术道德建设的意见》(以下简称《意见》)。《意见》公布了具体的制度保障措施。近年来,学术失范和学术不端行为不同程度地存在,而不科学的评价机制和评价体系一直被认为是造成此不良行为的主要原因。《意见》的最     

中国哲学社会科学学术社团工作的反思与前瞻

学术社团作为人民团体的重要组成部分,在我国经济社会发展中有着重要的作用.建国以来,由于各个时期社会环境和发展条件不同,学术社团依次经历了初始、勃发和转型三个不同的发展阶段.随着我国改革开放和经济社会的发展,出现了对学术社团发展极其有利的环境和条件.然而,学术社团却面临着法治化、规范化、市场化的严峻挑战.新形势下学术社团只要自觉坚持中国特色社会主义理论体系的科学指导,主动融入中国特色社会主义伟大实践,始终立足于发挥自身的优势,积极探索不同的发展模式,持之以恒地朝着学术社团工作法治化、规范化、市场化之路开拓前进,其前景是可以期待的.     

学术不端行为的危害及其治理

近年来,学术不端行为已成为社会热点问题之一,有关部门相继制定了一系列规范以预防和惩治学术不端行为,社会各界也采取不同措施试图遏制这股恶劣风气.2008年10月,由<中国社会科学>杂志社发起,全国50余家知名学术期刊在武汉共同签署了<关于坚决抵制学术不端行为的联合声明>,这表明学术期刊勇于承担抵制学术不端行为的重要职责.学术不端行为之所以引起社会各界的高度关注,关键在于它既是学术公害,又是社会公害,不仅造成学术道德沦丧,而且严重地损害了整个社会风气.因此,我们应当认清学术不端行为的特点及危害,采取切实有效措施,坚决抵制和遏止学术不端行为蔓延的势头.     

研究生学术道德建设的现状及其改善途径

近年来，研究生中出现的学术道德失范现象令人担忧，问题的出现除学生个体的自身和社会大环境的原因外，作为高校的研究生教育工作者，更进行深刻的自我反思。本文主要从研究生学术道德失范的具体情况入手，反思学术道德建设中存在的问题和不足，并提出改善学术道德建设的途径。     

浅析高校研究生学术道德失范的现象及原因

研究生的学术道德水平是衡量研究生学位授予水平的重要指标。随着研究生教育规模的扩大,研究生学术道德水平却出现了不同程度的下滑趋势,研究生当中各种违反学术道德的行为逐渐增多。文章从研究生学术道德失范的具体现象入手,分析造成这种现象的原因,反思学术道德建设中存在的问题和不足,并提出应加强研究生学术道德建设的措施。     

加强学术引证与学术注释规范

学术规范是学术共同体进行学术研究必须遵守的基本规则和道德要求。加强学术引证与学术注释的规范,矫治文献引用的失德行为,是学术界和出版界必须认真解决的重要问题。要改进出版物的注释体例规范,坚持出版社三审制度,推广论文发表专家匿名评审制度。同时,各刊社之间加强横向联系,建立合作机制,通过媒体进行客观公正的批评与监督,加强对抄袭剽窃等侵权行为的打击力度。     

浅论人文学科现行学术评价的非科学性

学术界学术不端和异化现象已经不再是新鲜事,虽然这种丑陋现象为大多数学者所严厉批评,并且有关部门和教育机构也出台了一些条文予以积极杜绝,但其还是时有发生,特别是在人文学科,这种现象似乎更为严重。现行学术评价非科学性的单一模式,即以核心期刊、来源期刊、权威期刊和课题基金项目数为衡量科研学术的主要依据,是其根本原因中的决定因素。因此,提高学术评价的科学性也就成了根治学术不端和异化现象,使学术回归为对真理的探求,而非为教育主管机构、高校和个人追名逐利的功利性工具最主要的举措。而提高学术评价的科学性在于坚持三项原则：一是重视不同学科科研特质,实事求是地制定长期和短期相结合的评价体系;二是建立多种科研数据综合评价机制;三是对学术腐败者实行解聘,严重者予以法律追究。     

Evaluating the oversight of scientific misconduct

The Office of Research Integrity has proposed a new definition of scientific misconduct that will substantively reduce the federal government's role of oversight of scientific practices. The standard is being changed despite the lack of evidence about the effects of current policies or understanding of why research misconduct occurs, how it can be detected and prevented, and the nature and effectiveness of sanctions. Given this lack of knowledge and the perception that the integrity of science is falling, we believe it would be unwise for the academic and scientific community to adopt this new standard.     

Evaluating the Oversight of Scientific Misconduct

The office of Research Integrity has proposed a new definition of scientific misconduct that will substantively reduce the federal government's role of oversight of scientific practices. The standard is being changed despite the lack of evidence about the effects of current policies or understanding of why research misconduct occurs, how it can be detected and prevented, and the nature and effectiveness of sanctions. Given this lack of knowledge and the perception that the integrity of science is falling, we believe it would be unwise for the academic and scientific community to adopt this new standard.     

The role of culture in research misconduct

There seems to be a taboo against discussing the role culture or national origin might play in research misconduct. Still, some observers wonder why so many scientists representing foreign cultures are among those found guilty of misconduct. Even after examining the scant available data, whether foreign nationals are disproportionately represented among Office of Research Integrity (ORI) respondents remains unclear. The lack of data, however, does not negate culture as a possible explanatory variable in research misconduct. Applying theories from sociological criminology, the author posits that the culture some researchers bring may be at odds with the norms of academic science and may emphasize ends more than means. As such, culture simply may be one of several etiological factors in research misconduct and should be considered in the spirit of objective scientific inquiry. Acknowledging the role of culture in the adherence to research ethics underscores the importance of education and training of both researchers and administrators in the responsible conduct of research and cultural diversity.     

Misconduct versus Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement

Researchers sometimes mistakenly accuse their peers of misconduct. It is important to distinguish between misconduct and honest error or a difference of scientific opinion to prevent unnecessary and time-consuming misconduct proceedings, protect scientists from harm, and avoid deterring researchers from using novel methods or proposing controversial hypotheses. While it is obvious to many researchers that misconduct is different from a scientific disagreement or simply an inadvertent mistake in methods, analysis or misinterpretation of data, applying this distinction to real cases is sometimes not easy. Because the line between misconduct and honest error or a scientific dispute is often unclear, research organizations and institutions should distinguish between misconduct and honest error and scientific disagreement in their policies and practices. These distinctions should also be explained during educational sessions on the responsible conduct of research and in the mentoring process. When researchers wrongfully accuse their peers of misconduct, it is important to help them understand the distinction between misconduct and honest error and differences of scientific judgment or opinion, pinpoint the source of disagreement, and identify the relevant scientific norms. They can be encouraged to settle the dispute through collegial discussion and dialogue, rather than a misconduct allegation.     

Misconduct versus honest error and scientific disagreement

Researchers sometimes mistakenly accuse their peers of misconduct. It is important to distinguish between misconduct and honest error or a difference of scientific opinion to prevent unnecessary and time-consuming misconduct proceedings, protect scientists from harm, and avoid deterring researchers from using novel methods or proposing controversial hypotheses. While it is obvious to many researchers that misconduct is different from a scientific disagreement or simply an inadvertent mistake in methods, analysis or misinterpretation of data, applying this distinction to real cases is sometimes not easy. Because the line between misconduct and honest error or a scientific dispute is often unclear, research organizations and institutions should distinguish between misconduct and honest error and scientific disagreement in their policies and practices. These distinctions should also be explained during educational sessions on the responsible conduct of research and in the mentoring process. When researchers wrongfully accuse their peers of misconduct, it is important to help them understand the distinction between misconduct and honest error and differences of scientific judgment or opinion, pinpoint the source of disagreement, and identify the relevant scientific norms. They can be encouraged to settle the dispute through collegial discussion and dialogue, rather than a misconduct allegation.     

The Challenges for Scientists in Avoiding Plagiarism

Although it might seem to be a simple task for scientists to avoid plagiarism and thereby an allegation of research misconduct, assessment of trainees in the Responsible Conduct of Research and recent findings from the National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General regarding plagiarism suggests otherwise. Our experiences at a land–grant academic institution in assisting researchers in avoiding plagiarism are described. We provide evidence from a university–wide multi–disciplinary course that understanding how to avoid plagiarism in scientific writing is more difficult than it might appear, and that a failure to learn the rules of appropriate citation may cause dire consequences. We suggest that new strategies to provide training in avoiding plagiarism are required.     

Scientific misconduct: Undue process

Numerous professional societies, universities, research funding sources, federal agencies, and Congressional committees have expressed concern about an apparent increasing incidence of scientific misconduct. Many of these organizations also have published standards for defining such misconduct and their procedures for investigating allegations of scientific misconduct. The futility of these procedures is illustrated by an example of blatant data falsification and fabrication in two different research projects conducted by a single researcher. The problem derives from administrative and judicial systems which have evolved to a stage where they are more concerned with process than outcome. An alternative to the resulting interminable “due process”; of the present system is tentatively suggested.     

Data falsification and question on academic integrity

In this commentary, we argue that plagiarism is not a new problem in academic publishing and data falsification in recent times has received a great attention globally. Due to lack of literature, the objective of this study is to evaluate data falsification and academic integrity. Accordingly, the study presents the academic misconduct (Falsification/Fabrication of data and Concerns/Issues About Data) case of Professor James E. Hunton, a former top ranked accounting professor from Bentley University. The study shows how research fraud/data falsification activity in the academic world lacks honesty and morality. The study offers some recommendations for the detection of plagiarism and academic misconduct. In the age of the Internet and digital era, Crossref, iThenticate, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) would help to detect plagiarism. However, the question remains on detecting data falsification in the academic world.     

Malaysian researchers talk about the influence of culture on research misconduct in higher learning institutions

Based on a previous survey by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in the USA, a considerable number of foreign research scientists have been found guilty of research misconduct. However, it remains unclear as to whether or not cultural factors really contribute to research misconduct. This study is based on a series of interviews with Malaysian researchers from the local universities regarding their own professional experiences involving working with researchers or research students from different countries or of different nationalities. Most of the researchers interviewed agreed that cultures do shape individual character, which influences the way that such individuals conduct research, their decision-making, and their style of academic writing. Our findings also showed that working culture within the institution also influences research practices, as well as faculty mentorship of the younger generation of researchers. Given the fact such misconduct might be due to a lack of understanding of research or working cultures or practices within the institution, the impact on the scientific community and on society could be destructive. Therefore, it is suggested that the institution has an important role to play in orienting foreign researchers through training, mentoring, and discussion with regard to the “does” and “don’ts” related to research, and to provide them with an awareness of the importance of ethics when it comes to conducting research.     

From Baltimore to Bell Labs: reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct

This essay proposes a new definition of scientific "misconduct," which is broader than the definition recently adopted by the U.S. government. According to the proposed definition, misconduct is a serious and intentional violation of accepted scientific practices, commonsense ethical norms, or research regulations in proposing, designing, conducting, reviewing, or reporting research. Punishable misconduct includes fabrication of data or experiments, falsification of data, plagiarism, or interference with a misconduct investigation. Misconduct does not include honest errors, differences of opinion, or ethically questionable research practices.