Social-cognitive barriers to ethical authorship

Frontiers in Psychology

Jordan R. Schoenherr¹ 

关键词: research misconduct;    research integrity;    inappropriate authorship;    source credibility;    applied ethics;   

DOI  :  10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00877

学科分类：心理学（综合）

来源: Frontiers

【 摘 要 】

Widespread interest in dishonesty in research began comparatively recently in the history of the sciences (e.g., Broad and Wade, 1982; Steneck, 1999) although there was an early recognition that misconduct was a feature of scientific research (Babbage, 1830). Though a definitive set of forms of misconduct has yet to be identified, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) are generally cited as clear violations of scientific norms. In a review of studies of FFP, Steneck (2006) estimated that its occurrence rate fell within a range of 1.0 and 0.001% (for recent support, see Fanelli, 2009). He further suggested that research practices reflect a normal distribution, with FFP representing outlying behaviors. More ambiguous behaviors, or questionable research practices (QRP), have a much higher rate of occurrence, with Steneck suggesting that they constitute 10–50% of all research practices. QRPs represent an interesting form of misconduct in that they apparently reflect a feature of normal science (De Vries et al., 2006) thereby suggesting that they might reflect the social-cognitive processes underlying the dishonest behaviors of people more generally (e.g., Bazerman and Tenbrunsel, 2011; Ariely, 2012).

【 授权许可】

CC BY