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

Difference in scientists' discourse about scientific fraud and impropriety.

I D John1

  • 1Department of Psychology, University of Adelaide, GPO Box 498, Adelaide SA 5001, Australia.

Australian Psychologist
|July 1, 1991
PubMed
Summary

Scientists perceive scientific fraud differently. Some view it as individual failings, while others see it as an expected outcome of science as a social system.

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

The properties of distributions of magnitude estimates of loudness and softness.

Scandinavian journal of psychology·1971
Same author

Intrasensory effects in simple reaction time: a re-analysis of Rubinstein's data.

Perceptual and motor skills·1967
Same author

PERCEPTUAL AND RESPONSES FACTORS IN THE BLOCK DESIGN ROTATION EFFECT.

Perceptual and motor skills·1965
Same author

A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE BLOCK DESIGN ROTATION EFFECT.

Perceptual and motor skills·1964

Area of Science:

  • Sociology of Science
  • Scientific Ethics
  • Research Integrity

Background:

  • Scientific fraud and impropriety are significant concerns within the scientific community.
  • Understanding scientists' perceptions of misconduct is crucial for addressing its root causes and impacts.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how practicing scientists conceptualize scientific fraud and impropriety.
  • To identify different perspectives on the nature and causes of scientific misconduct among researchers.

Main Methods:

  • A Q-sort methodology was employed with 51 practicing scientists.
  • Participants sorted 90 statements related to scientific fraud and impropriety.
  • Principal components analysis was used to identify distinct viewpoints.
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral ResearchEmpirical Approach

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Two primary groups of scientists emerged based on their Q-sorts.
  • Group 1 (N=18) holds a conventional view, attributing misconduct to individual scientist shortcomings.
  • Group 2 (N=7) adopts a critical stance, viewing misconduct as inherent to science as a social institution.

Conclusions:

  • Scientists' perspectives on fraud and impropriety vary significantly.
  • These differing views have implications for understanding and debating scientific misconduct.
  • Recognizing these diverse perspectives is key to developing effective strategies for research integrity.