Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading  Processing Request

Standards of Scientific Conduct: Disciplinary Differences.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
اقرأ على الانترنت اقرأ أكثر حفظ في قائمتي
  • المؤلفون: Kalichman M;Kalichman M; Sweet M; Sweet M; Plemmons D; Plemmons D; Plemmons D
  • المصدر:
    Science and engineering ethics [Sci Eng Ethics] 2015 Oct; Vol. 21 (5), pp. 1085-93. Date of Electronic Publication: 2014 Sep 26.
  • نوع النشر :
    Comparative Study; Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
  • اللغة:
    English
  • معلومة اضافية
    • المصدر:
      Publisher: Opragen Publications Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 9516228 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1471-5546 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 13533452 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Sci Eng Ethics Subsets: MEDLINE
    • بيانات النشر:
      Original Publication: Guildford, Surrey, UK : Opragen Publications, c1995-
    • الموضوع:
      Consensus*; Biomedical Research/*ethics ; Ethics, Research/*education ; Microbiology/*ethics ; Neurosciences/*ethics ; Psychology/*ethics; Authorship ; Biomedical Research/education ; Cooperative Behavior ; Humans ; Microbiology/education ; Neurosciences/education ; Nursing Research/education ; Nursing Research/ethics ; Psychology/education ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; United States
    • نبذة مختصرة :
      Teaching of responsible conduct of research is largely predicated on the assumption that there are accepted standards of conduct that can be taught. However there is little evidence of consensus in the scientific community about such standards, at least for the practices of authorship, collaboration, and data management. To assess whether such differences in standards are based on disciplinary differences, a survey, described previously, addressing standards, practices, and perceptions about teaching and learning was distributed in November 2010 to US faculty from 50 graduate programs for the biomedical disciplines of microbiology, neuroscience, nursing, and psychology. Despite evidence of statistically significant differences across the four disciplines, actual differences were quite small. Stricter measures of effect size indicated practically significant disciplinary differences for fewer than 10% of the questions. This suggests that the variation in individual standards of practice within each discipline is at least as great as variation due to differences among disciplines. Therefore, the need for discipline-specific training may not be as important as sometimes thought.
    • References:
      Acad Med. 2007 Sep;82(9):853-60. (PMID: 17726390)
      Account Res. 2014;21(1):68-83. (PMID: 24073608)
      Sci Eng Ethics. 2014 Dec;20(4):885-96. (PMID: 24337932)
    • Grant Information:
      R01 NR009962 United States NR NINR NIH HHS; UL1 TR001442 United States TR NCATS NIH HHS; NR009962 United States NR NINR NIH HHS; UL1 RR031980 United States RR NCRR NIH HHS; UL1RR031980 United States RR NCRR NIH HHS; UL1 TR000100 United States TR NCATS NIH HHS; UL1TR000100 United States TR NCATS NIH HHS
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: Authorship; Collaboration; Data management; Research ethics; Responsible conduct of research; Standards
    • الموضوع:
      Date Created: 20140927 Date Completed: 20160405 Latest Revision: 20211021
    • الموضوع:
      20231215
    • الرقم المعرف:
      PMC4375091
    • الرقم المعرف:
      10.1007/s11948-014-9594-0
    • الرقم المعرف:
      25256408