失范行为的调适之道——根治腐败的社会学思考

腐败是一种社会失范行为。它是权力缺乏制约、私欲恶性膨胀、权力资本化和新旧体制转换共同作用的结果。用社会学视角解决反腐治本问题 ,其思路是完善制度约束人 ,有效监督激励人 ,严法弘德规范人     

大学治理效能提升的制度变迁逻辑——兼评《法理与学理——大学学术不端行为问责研究》

制度优势更好地转化为治理效能是中国大学达至良治与良序的基本遵循。大学治理效能因制度设计的合法性危机、制度发展的路径依赖以及制度实践的结构功能失衡掣肘而大打折扣。修复大学治理生态、提升治理效能,应当通过利益主体角色的精准定位和认知图式的科学重塑复归大学学术组织属性;应当通过建立健全符合法律法规、体现自身特色的制度体系践行制度变迁的历史逻辑、理性逻辑和法治逻辑;应当通过顶层设计和效益激励整合“强致性”与“诱致性”制度变迁。     

互联网环境下学术期刊防范学术不端行为技术研究

利用互联网环境，从技术的角度出发，对一稿多投、抄袭行为、剽窃行为以及捏造行为等学术不端行为的检测与防范进行研究，提出了各种操作上可行的方法。实践证明，运用这些方法，可有效地防范有学术不端行为的文章在学术期刊上发表。     

高校学报研究生来稿学术不端现象管窥

对高校学报研究生来稿中的学术不端现象进行了梳理和分析,认为应从加强学术道德教育、充分发挥导师的作用、增强著作权法意识、改革研究生考核评价制度以及缩短审稿周期、及时向作者反馈审稿信息等方面,来防范和遏制学术不端现象。     

Both Whistleblowers and the Scientists They Accuse Are Vulnerable and Deserve Protection

Whistleblowers play an important role diagnosing research misconduct, but often experience severe negative consequences. That is also true for incorrectly accused scientists. Both categories are vulnerable and deserve protection. Whistleblowers must proceed carefully and cautiously. Anonymous whistleblowing should be discouraged but cannot be ignored when the allegations are specific, serious, and plausible. When accused of a breach of research integrity it is important to be as transparent as possible. Sometimes accusations are false in the sense that the accuser knows or should know that the allegations are untrue. A mala fide whistleblower typically does not act carefully and we postulate a typology that may help in detecting them. Striking the right balance between whistleblower protection and timely unmasking false and identifying incorrect accusations is a tough dilemma leaders of research institutions have to face.     

A call for the development of “good research practices” (GRP) guidelines

It is proposed that the scientific community develop and implement “Good Research Practices”; (GRP) guidelines in order to improve the quality of research, reduce the incidence of scientific misconduct, and save large sums of monies from being wasted.     

澳大利亚研究理事会的科研不端行为处理制度——以《澳大利亚负责任研究行为准则》为核心的探讨

作为澳大利亚国内最重要的国家科学基金机构,澳大利亚研究理事会（ARC）已经构建起一套关于科研不端行为的应对处理机制．包含一系列实体性法律标准及程序规定,涉及科研不端行为调查处理的一般性程序、法律责任、违法者权利保护、程序公平等问题,其中包含着可为我国有关立法所借鉴的有益经验。     

When are organizations punished for organizational misconduct? A review and research agenda

Scholars have highlighted the use of punishment as a tool to defend laws and norms, deter deviance, and restore justice in the aftermath of organizational misconduct. However, current theory and research primarily draw on a micro-oriented lens to understand how punishment occurs in response to deviant actors within organizations, neglecting macro-oriented questions of whether and how organizations are punished for their misconduct. We review sociological and macro-organizational work that suggests punitive severity can vary with three key attributes of the organization: status, reputation, and embedded ties. We then develop a mezzo-lens framework motivated at the intersection of micro- and macro-perspectives on organizational misconduct to shed light on opportunities for theoretical expansion by crossing levels of analysis.     

Inaction over retractions of identified fraudulent publications: ongoing weakness in the system of scientific self-correction

Published articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer considered reliable due to honest error, publication misconduct, or research misconduct. This article focuses on the case of a single serial violator of research and publication ethics in anesthesiology and critical care, which is widely publicized. A chain of events led to detection of misconduct that had substantial impact on the evidence base for the safety of hydroxyethyl starch, an intravenous artificial colloid solution, which is reflected in current guidelines on fluid management and volume resuscitation. As citations to retracted works continue to be a cause for concern, this article reviews the retraction status of this author’s published articles to determine whether sufficient action has been taken to retract his body of work. Results show that retraction practices are not uniform and that guidelines for retraction are still not being fully implemented, resulting in retractions of insufficient quantity and quality. As retractions continue to emerge for the author’s publications, with ten more since 2011, and as they are generally increasing, these data on retractions not only provide findings of misconduct, but also allow us to make inferences about ongoing weaknesses in the system of scientific literature.