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

Evaluating the oversight of scientific misconduct.

Barbara K Redman1, Jon F Merz

  • 1Department of Medical Ethics, University of Pennsylvania, 3401 Market Street, Suite 320, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3308, USA. ae9080@wayne.edu

Accountability in Research
|April 26, 2006
PubMed
Summary

The Office of Research Integrity

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

Research Misconduct in Academia: Examining the Views of Academics in a Public University in Ghana.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same author

What Should Be Roles of Industry and the Public in Diagnostic Research?

AMA journal of ethics·2025
Same author

INSPECT-SR: a tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials.

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences·2025
Same author

Editorial: Regulatory science and meta science as components of regulation of medical products and practices.

Frontiers in medicine·2025
Same author

Who to engage in HIV vaccine trial benefit-sharing negotiations? An empirical proposition of a framework.

BMC medical ethics·2024
Same author

Patient Consent for Medical Student Pelvic Exams under Anesthesia: An Exploratory Retrospective Chart Review.

The Journal of clinical ethics·2024

Area of Science:

  • Scientific integrity and research ethics.
  • Federal oversight of scientific practices.
  • Policy analysis in academia.

Background:

  • The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) proposed a new definition of scientific misconduct.
  • This change aims to reduce federal oversight of scientific practices.
  • Current policies' effects and reasons for research misconduct are poorly understood.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the proposed changes to the definition of scientific misconduct.
  • To assess the implications of reduced federal oversight on scientific integrity.
  • To advocate for evidence-based policymaking in research misconduct.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of the proposed definition by the Office of Research Integrity.
  • Review of existing literature on research misconduct.
  • Assessment of the current understanding of misconduct detection, prevention, and sanctions.

Main Results:

  • The proposed definition significantly reduces federal oversight.
  • There is a lack of evidence regarding current policies and the nature of research misconduct.
  • Understanding of misconduct causes, detection, prevention, and sanctions is limited.

Conclusions:

  • Adopting the new standard is unwise given the lack of supporting evidence.
  • Maintaining robust oversight is crucial amidst concerns about declining scientific integrity.
  • Further research is needed to inform effective policies on research misconduct.
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Related Experiment Videos