Research Ethics Professional is a sub-collection on research ethics focusing on professional ethics, on work ethics in the research profession, namely on the specific responsibilities common among researchers who do the research, including the whole environment and other stakeholders.The main ethical normative aspects of research are presented in a systematic way as building blocks from a unifying principle, a limited set of virtues and a wide range of responsibilities as self-oriented or others-oriented duties. The collection as a systematic whole is highlighting a holistic approach on the ethics of duties in the research profession, from various points of views, constituting a comprehensive totality of all main aspects of this activity, based on The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, published recently by All European Academies (ALLEA). This collection borrows from ALLEA's expertise and results, it shows in short how to deal with failures to use good practice, which jeopardize by irresponsible behaviour the important harmony between the aim of increasing knowledge and remaining true to self-knowledge, proper to ethical life.

Recent Submissions


    Bard, Jennifer (SelectedWorks, 2014-03-14)
    Like Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the Duck Dynasty family, to Edward Snowden, the NSA leaker, many professors at U.S. colleges and universities are surprised to find how little protection they have from the adverse consequences of their speech. The First Amendment is says nothing about either academic freedom or whistleblowing and it has been left to the Supreme Court to develop a doctrine as to when and if a professor’s speech is entitled to Constitutional Protection. This article considers the broad topic of protection for speech by professors other than that directly related to the views they express on their areas of expertise. So the issue here is not about creationism among biologists or holocaust denial from historians, it is about statements faculty make about matters of general public interest including the running of their own institutions. It also includes direct whistleblowing about wrongdoing by the institution. Constitutional protection, of course, is only available to faculty who work for public institutions—because only a state funded school can qualify as a state actor. The Supreme Court made news in 2006 when it restricted the protection available to public employees speaking out on matters that were part of their job. The case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, involved an assistant DA who was demoted after passing on to his boss that the local sheriff’s department had made false statements about a witness. The decision came with an impassioned dissent from Justice Souter who was concerned about its effect on academic freedom. And indeed in the eight years since Garcetti, court after court has denied protection to professors at public universities based on employees. That all changed this past February, however, when the 9th Circuit Court of appeals issued an opinion in Austin V. Demers boldly declaring that not only didn’t Garcetti’s restrictions apply to academic speech, statements made by professors about the running of their university was just as protected as statements about their academic areas of expertise. This article looks at the big picture of protections available to academics, in both public and private institutions. It does so by presenting four hypotheticals in which professors run afoul of university administration based on their speech and considers the four major areas of law which can provide protection. These include Constitutional law, but also specific state statutes relevant to higher education, like Title IX and the Clery Act, federal False Claims Act actions which are available to any employee of a college or university whose students receive federal financial aid, and finally state whistleblower laws which can provide protection beyond the first amendment but are often very difficult to invoke.
  • The Scholar as Advocate

    Eisenberg, Rebecca S. (University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository, 1993-01-01)
    Academic freedom in this country has been so closely identified with faculty autonomy that the two terms are often used interchangeably, especially by faculty members who are resisting restraints on their freedom to do as they please. While there may be some dispute as to whether or how far academic freedom protects the autonomy of universities or of students, the autonomy of faculty members seems to lie close to the core of the traditional American conception of academic freedom. As elaborated by the American Association of University Professors, this conception of academic freedom calls for protecting individual faculty members from lay interference, especially from the university trustees and administrators on whom they depend for their livelihood, so that faculty may perform their social function of generating and disseminating new knowledge "without fear or favor."' Otherwise, according to this view, the public could not be certain that the opinions presented by faculty were the candid views of academic experts, undistorted by the less informed views of their lay benefactors. I have previously argued that faculty autonomy fails to protect the academic values underlying this traditional conception of academic freedom when faculty members need to find external sponsors for their work.2 Faculty who are eager for funding may face powerful incentives to accommodate the interests of sponsors who seek to control the agenda of academic research and the dissemination of its results. In this context deference to faculty autonomy in the name of academic freedom could tie the, hands of universities and prevent them from responding effectively to certain contemporary threats to academic values.
  • Measuring the Value of Collegiality Among Law Professors

    Seigel, Michael L.; Miner-Rubino, Kathi (UF Law Scholarship Repository, 2009-01-01)
    This article is the last in a trilogy addressing the issue of collegiality among law In the first piece, titled On Collegiality, author Seigel defined professors' "collegiality" and suggested that most law schools have at least one, if not two or three, "affirmatively uncollegial" members of their faculty. Seigel posited that these individuals tend to interfere with the ideal functioning of their institutions by negatively affecting the well-being of their peers. Some readers of On Collegiality questioned the legitimacy of Seigel's cost-benefit analysis. Specifically, they commented that some of the factors Seigel used in his analysis could be empirically measured. In response, the present authors teamed up to conduct an empirical study of collegiality.
  • Publishing short-cuts and their potential career impact

    Morris, Suzanne E. (Springer, 2013-07-27)
  • Academic Freedom and Academic Responsibility

    Rapoport, Nancy B. (Scholarly Commons @ UNLV Law, 2010-01-01)
    In this review of Matthew W. Finkin & Robert C. Post, For the Common Good: Principles of Academic Freedom (Yale University Press 2009), I examine Finkin & Post's study of academic freedom in U.S. higher education institutions and link the issues surrounding academic freedom to the issues surrounding shared governance. I argue that the problems with shared governance can create a race to the bottom in academic units.
  • Improving Research Ethics in Engineering: A Challenge for Academics in Engineering and Ethics

    Valdes, Didier M.; Ferrer, Jorge J.; Jaramillo, Erika C. (ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst, 2009-06-01)
  • Confucianism and the chiniversity: East Asian perspectives on higher education

    LI, Jun 李軍 (2013-10-17)
    Confucianism is a very complex philosophy developed through 25 centuries, with rich legacies which have profoundly shaped the Chiniversity, a term for distilling the Chinese model of the university. It has had a dominant role in the institutionalization and development of higher education throughout China's long history, influencing its mission and vision, governance, curriculum and pedagogy, with all of these elements reinforced by the Imperial Civil Service Examination. Confucianism has also constituted the main epistemological force that shapes the unique East Asian perspective on higher learning and education, with its long tradition of self-mastery and intellectual freedom, an orientation towards ethics that is secular, and an integration of knowledge and action. It has also accommodated both institutional and structural diversity. All these features have deeply influenced modern Chinese higher education, making the Chinese model of the university fundamentally distinct from the various models developed in the Western world, while closer to modern universities in other parts of Asia. Along with China’s rise in the new century, the legacy of Confucianism may continue and expand its global influence, as evident in the recent flourishing of Confucius Institutes all over the world.
  • Promoting responsible research conduct in a developing world academic context

    none; Horn, Lyn Margaret; Centre for Applied Ethics, Department of Philosophy and Division for Research Development, Stellenbosch University, South Africa (Health and Medical Publishing Group (HMPG), 2013-06-21)
    As reports of research misconduct seem to increase, research integrity and the promotion of responsible research conduct are important for academic institutions. This paper considers what research integrity means for individual researchers and institutions, and explores trends for promoting responsible research conduct. An Aristotelian concept of ‘the good’ is used to consider the difference between ‘good’ and ‘successful’ researchers. I argue that a balance is required between advancing an ethics of individual responsibility on the one hand, and a compliance-focused approach on the other. I discuss institutional strategies for promoting responsible research conduct, including training and mentorship, developing an appropriate institutional culture that emphasises individual responsibility and accountability, and ensuring that institutions have clear, easily accessible policies available for all aspects of research.
  • Evaluating academic governance processes and structures: Ethical dilemmas and academic governance development

    Boyd, William E (ePublications@SCU, 2009-01-01)
    Academic governance is at the core of an educational institution’s business. Its value lies in its ability for the institution to delivery a quality curriculum. As such, it needs to be fully understood and implemented by managers, administrators and academics alike. The need for evaluation of academic governance is clear, although there are many ways in which this may be done. This paper assumes that evaluation of academic governance needs to span the scales of policy, process and practice, and proposes an approach to do so. Shapiro’s ethical dilemmas approach to examine institution staff practices allows a critical engagement with tensions that arise in any practical setting between the ethics of justice, care, critique and the profession, and thus opens opportunity for an evaluative engagement with governance that not only allows for an assessment of the governance system, but builds the capacity of the institution and its staff to develop, change and implement the body of academic governance that reflects and articulates the institution’s core values and vision. The paper illustrates this suggestion with an initial discussion of a critical dilemmas evaluation of academic integrity governance.
  • Responsible Conduct of Research with Computational Models and Simulations

    Dankowicz, Harry; Loui, Michael C.; Dankowicz, Harry; Loui, Michael C.; Kijowski, David J. (2011-01-14)
    Research with computational models and simulations has become integral to many science and engineering fields; computation now rivals experimentation as a mode of scientific research. Despite the rapid growth of literature on computational modeling, little has been done to examine the standards of practice for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) with computational models and simulations. Most previous works on RCR have focused on good practices in laboratory experiments, while most of the literature on the ethics of modeling has concentrated on operations research or decision-support models. This work aims to identify the responsibilities of researchers who develop and/or use computational models and simulations and provide instructional materials to teach the responsibilities specific to research with computational models and simulations. Nineteen experts were interviewed to collect examples of ethical issues from their experiences in conducting research with computational models. Informed by their stories and recommendations for guidelines for computational research, responsibilities were identified for both the developers and users of computational models in research. The RCR issues are organized across the life-span of a model, including the formulation of mathematical models, the implementation of algorithms, the disclosure of assumptions and methods, the proper use of models, verification and validation, the presentation of results, and the maintenance of models. To illustrate the responsibilities of computational model developers and users, ten case stories were constructed. Additionally, the Discrete Element Method (DEM) was explored with the goal of uncovering possible ethical issues that can occur during the development and use of DEM models. Five benchmark problems and a checklist of recommended assessments were developed to aid DEM model users in checking for undesired behaviors.
  • RCR for Postdocs: Promoting Ethical Professional Development

    Flint, Kathleen (ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst, 2010-02-19)
    This presentation was part of the AAAS Annual Conference professional development workshop, National Science Foundation and Ethics Education in Science and Engineering, during the recent meeting in San Diego, California (18-22 February). Dr. Michael Gorman, Program Director, Science, Technology & Society, National Science Foundation, moderated the workshop presentations and the discussion that followed. In addition, he contributed a set of powerpoint slides outlining the role of NSF in its response to the America Competes Act, including a commitment to support an online resource in ethics education. Dr. Philip Langlais, Vice Provost for Graduate Studies & Research, Old Dominion University, presented recommendations for developing institutional RCR and mentoring programs based on the new NSF and NIH RCR requirements. Dr. Kathleen Flint, Project Manager, National Postdoctoral Association, gave recommendations for unique RCR training needs of postdocs and reported on the NPA "Bring RCR Home Project," a national project that worked to develop local RCR programs for postdocs. Dr. Jane Fountain, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, and Director of the National Center for Digital Government and the Science, Technology & Society Initiative, University of Massachusetts Amherst, presented recent developments at ESENCe, one of the beta sites sponsored by NSF. The purpose of ESENCe is to preserve and widely disseminate a variety of materials on ethics and the responsible conduct of research in science and engineering disciplines. In addition, the presentation summarized recent development of cases, background notes and teaching materials regarding international dimensions of ethics education.
  • An Online Course for Instruction in the Reponsible Conduct of Research

    USDOE - Office of Science (SC); Kalichman, Michael (University of California, San Diego, 2004-10-12)
    Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) is the process by which regulations, guidelines, standards and ethics are reconciled to promote integrity in research. The development of this online resource, with contributions from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), will allow the DOE system to offer state-of-the-art education in RCR to its sites. The intent of the project is to establish basic RCR content websites, publicize for public use and review, revise as recommended or as ethics change, and to continue supplementing with new material. The resulting resources will be posted on the Web (
  • Do Croatian open access journals support ethical research? Content analysis of instructions to authors

    Stojanovski, Jadranka (Medicinska naklada, 2015-02-15)
    Introduction: The aim of our study was to investigate the extent to which Instructions to authors of the Croatian open access (OA) journals are addressing ethical issues. Do biomedical journals differ from the journals from other disciplines in that respect? Our hypothesis was that biomedical journals maintain much higher publication ethics standards. Materials and methods: This study looked at 197 Croatian OA journals Instructions to authors to address the following groups of ethical issues: general terms; guidelines and recommendations; research approval and registration; funding and conflict of interest; peer review; redundant publications, misconduct and retraction; copyright; timeliness; authorship; and data accessibility. We further compared a subset of 159 non-biomedical journals with a subset of 38 biomedical journals. Content analysis was used to discern the ethical issues representation in the instructions to authors. Results: The groups of biomedical and non-biomedical journals were similar in terms of originality (χ2 = 2.183, P = 0.140), peer review process (χ2 = 0.296, P = 0.586), patent/grant statement (χ2 = 2.184, P = 0.141), and timeliness of publication (χ2 = 0.369, P = 0.544). We identified significant differences among categories including ethical issues typical for the field of biomedicine, like patients (χ2 = 47.111, P < 0.001), and use of experimental animals (χ2 = 42.543, P < 0.001). Biomedical journals also rely on international editorial guidelines formulated by relevant professional organizations heavily, compared with non-biomedical journals (χ2 = 42.666, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Low representation or absence of some key ethical issues in author guidelines calls for more attention to the structure and the content of Instructions to authors in Croatian OA journals
  • Research Ethics Education in the STEM Disciplines: The Promises and Challenges of a Gaming Approach

    Briggle, Adam; Holbrook, J. Britt; Oppong, Joseph; Hoffmann, Joseph; Larsen, Elizabeth K.; Pluscht, Patrick (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2015-03-10)
    While education in ethics and the responsible conduct of research (RCR) is widely acknowledged as an essential component of graduate education, particularly in the STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and math), little consensus exists on how best to accomplish this goal. Recent years have witnessed a turn toward the use of games in this context. Drawing from two NSF-funded grants (one completed and one on-going), this paper takes a critical look at the use of games in ethics and RCR education. It does so by: (a) setting the development of research and engineering ethics games in wider historical and theoretical contexts, which highlights their promise to solve important pedagogical problems; (b) reporting on some initial results from our own efforts to develop a game; and (c) reflecting on the challenges that arise in using games for ethics education. In our discussion of the challenges, we draw out lessons to improve this nascent approach to ethics education in the STEM disciplines .
  • Monitoring and oversight in critical care research

    Lavery, James V; Van Laethem, Marleen LP; Slutsky, Arthur S (BioMed Central Ltd., 2004-09-28)
    Abstract Institutionally based research ethics review is a form of peer review that has – for better or worse – become the norm throughout the world. The vast majority of research ethics review takes the form of protocol review alone, conducted in advance of the research. Although oversight and monitoring in clinical research have long been recognized as essential features of sound research ethics, they are seldom exercised in ways that fulfill their motivating goals: to ensure that research is conducted as planned; that research participants comprehend the information presented to them in the consent process; and that the potential benefits and risks of study participation remain acceptable. Annual review of continuing research, monitoring informed consent, monitoring adherence to approved protocols and monitoring integrity of research data comprise the main types of monitoring and oversight activity. We believe that our institutionally based systems of research ethics review and responsibility require greater engagement and participation from researchers and research administrators. The appropriate role of critical care researchers and research administrators is to provide leadership to move toward a greater recognition of the importance of monitoring and oversight for ethical and high quality clinical research.
  • Max Crawford: necessity and freedom

    ANDERSON, FAY (2014-05-22)
    ?? 2002 Dr. Fay Anderson
  • On Collegiality

    Seigel, Michael L (UF Law Scholarship Repository, 2004-01-01)
    The problem of collegiality in academia is like a crazy aunt in the family: ever present, whispered about in hallways, but rarely acknowledged directly. My goal in this article has been to initiate the demise of this pattern of unhappy toleration. The toleration stems, in large part, from an apparently widespread fear that attempts to control colleagues' uncollegial conduct will result in an unacceptable diminution of academic freedom. Although these concerns are legitimate, I have sought to prove that, if appropriate care is taken, academic freedom may flourish at the same time that a norm of basic collegiality is enforced. Failure to maintain collegiality is potentially costly to the morale and productivity of an institution. The first line of defense in the battle for collegiality is manned by the faculty themselves; they must personally commit to collegial behavior, and they should use peer pressure to assure that their colleagues do the same.
  • Educación y sociedad en América Latina, una década después

    Albornoz, Orlando (SABER ULA, 2008-04-08)
  • Rational choice and moral intent in the responsible conduct of research

    Gordon, Anita M. (Digital Repository @ Iowa State University, 2012-01-01)
    Academic misconduct among students has been the focus of a tremendous amount of literature for a number of decades (Crown & Spiller, 1998). However, academic misconduct among faculty has received much less empirical attention (Steneck, 2006). This research was designed to contribute to the literature by empirically examining the possible effects of rational and moral judgments on faculty research misconduct, with a focus on the social sciences. The purpose of the study was to explore the application of a particular theory of human behavior - Rational Choice Theory - to the phenomenon of misconduct in research and to do so in the context of the James Rest, et al., moral decision-making framework. A national survey was conducted involving 2,070 faculty members in sociology and psychology departments from a random sample of research-intensive universities, which resulted in a survey sample of 581 respondents. The relationship between moral assessments and rational choice measures of the perceived likelihood of detection and sanctions was explored using scenarios involving clear or ambiguous research misconduct. Participants rated the likelihood they themselves would take the action described in the scenario under the same circumstances while also rating the moral and rational choice features of the situation. Multiple regression was used to predict the effect of moral and rational choice assessments on the probability of engaging in misconduct. Results showed significant effects for moral judgment as well as potential shame and embarrassment on reducing misconduct, but not for likelihood of detection or external sanctions.

View more