Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Measuring consensus about scientific research norms.

R A Berk1, S G Korenman, N S Wenger

  • 1Department of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095-7041, USA.

Science and Engineering Ethics
|March 29, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Palliative Care Quality Indicators for Patients with End-Stage Liver Disease Due to Cirrhosis.

Digestive diseases and sciences·2016
Same author

Factors related to declining luteal function in women during the menopausal transition.

The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism·2008
Same author

Religiousness and spirituality among HIV-infected Americans.

Journal of palliative medicine·2005
Same author

Using a faculty evaluation triad to achieve evidence-based teaching.

Nursing and health care perspectives·2005
Same author

Developing quality indicators for older adults: transfer from the USA to the UK is feasible.

Quality & safety in health care·2004
Same author

Common treatment of polycystic ovarian syndrome and major depressive disorder: case report and review.

Current drug targets. Immune, endocrine and metabolic disorders·2002
Same journal

Not Another Grocery List: Proposals for an Effective AI Ethics Implementation.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

From Biopiracy to Sustainable Knowledge Governance: Epistemic Justice and the Reconstruction of Resource Sovereignty in the Global South.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

Deliberative Lab Communication and the Practice of Ethical Science.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

Graduate Students Find Content of Responsible Conduct of Research Coursework Useful.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

Discursive Ethics as a Normative Foundation for Integrating Ethics into AI Clinical Decision Support Systems.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

Tragedies of Technology: An Exploration of Such Narratives.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
See all related articles

This study surveyed scientists and research integrity administrators on scientific misconduct. Findings reveal differing views on unethical behavior and sanctions, impacting science policy.

Area of Science:

  • Scientific Research Ethics
  • Sociology of Science

Background:

  • Norms governing scientific conduct are crucial for research integrity.
  • Understanding perceptions of ethical breaches is vital for maintaining public trust in science.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To empirically explore manifestations of norms in scientific conduct.
  • To compare the views of scientists and research administrators on scientific misconduct and sanctions.
  • To inform policy related to research integrity.

Main Methods:

  • Survey administered to 606 scientists funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and 91 research integrity administrators.
  • Respondents evaluated scenarios depicting potentially unethical scientific conduct.
  • Fractional factorial methods were used to design the survey scenarios.
Keywords:
Bioethics and Professional EthicsBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchEmpirical Approach

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Identified variations in the perception of unethical scientific practices among scientists and administrators.
  • Assessed the appropriateness of sanctions for different types of misconduct.
  • Highlighted similarities and differences in norm consensus between the two groups.

Conclusions:

  • Consensus on scientific norms varies, with distinct perspectives between researchers and administrators.
  • The findings have implications for developing and enforcing research integrity policies.
  • Addressing these differences is key to effective science policy and practice.