Author(s)
Krimsky, SheldonKeywords
EthicsGuidelines
Misconduct
Plagiarism
Research
Science
Scientific Misconduct
Professional-Professional Relationship
Scientific Research Ethics
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
http://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=When+conflict-of-interest+is+a+factor+in+scientific+misconduct&title=Medicine+and+Law:+The+World+Association+for+Medical+Law+&volume=26&issue=3&date=2007-09&au=Krimsky,+Sheldonhttp://hdl.handle.net/10822/962735
Abstract
Under the guidelines adopted by the United States (U.S.) Office of Research Integrity (ORI), scientific misconduct is defined by one or more of three activities: fabrication of data, falsification of results, and plagiarism or the improper appropriation of other people's ideas or written work. This paper discusses whether three other breaches in scientific ethics, namely ghost writing, fabricating credentials, and failure to disclose conflicts of interest, rise to the level of scientific misconduct. After discussing the funding effect in science, the paper argues that, like ghost writing and fabricated credentials, conflicts of interest can bias the outcome of research. Thus, lack of transparency to reviewers, journals and readers for conflicts of interest should be considered a form of scientific misconduct.Date
2016-01-08Identifier
oai:repository.library.georgetown.edu:10822/962735Medicine and Law: The World Association for Medical Law 2007 September; 26(3): 447-463
http://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=When+conflict-of-interest+is+a+factor+in+scientific+misconduct&title=Medicine+and+Law:+The+World+Association+for+Medical+Law+&volume=26&issue=3&date=2007-09&au=Krimsky,+Sheldon
http://hdl.handle.net/10822/962735