Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse

Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Standard

Exploring the Gray Area : Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research. / Ravn, Tine; Sørensen, Mads P.

I: Science and Engineering Ethics, Bind 27, Nr. 4, 40, 08.2021.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Ravn T, Sørensen MP. Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2021 aug.;27(4):40. Epub 2021. doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00310-z

Author

Bibtex

@article{50e8bb2919d5424fb8d3a9ae793ab5c9,
title = "Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research",
abstract = "This paper explores the gray area of questionable research practices (QRPs) between responsible conduct of research (RCR) and severe research misconduct in the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) (Steneck 2006). Up until now, we have had very little knowledge of disciplinary similarities and differences in QRPs. The paper is the first systematic account of variances and similarities. It reports on the findings of a comprehensive study comprising 22 focus groups on practices and perceptions of QRPs across main areas of research. The paper supports the relevance of the idea of epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina 1999), also when it comes to QRPs. It shows which QRPs researchers from different areas of research (humanities, social sciences, medical sciences, natural sciences, and technical sciences) report as the most severe and prevalent within their fields. Furthermore, it shows where in the research process these self-reported QRPs can be found. This is done by using a five-phase analytical model of the research process (idea generation, research design, data collection, data analysis, scientific publication and reporting). The paper shows that QRPs are closely connected to the distinct research practices within the different areas of research. Many QRPs can therefore only be found within one area of research, and QRPs that cut across main areas often cover relatively different practices. In a few cases, QRPs in one area are considered good research practice in another. ",
keywords = "QRP, disciplinary differences, epistemic culture, research integrity, responsible conduct of research",
author = "Tine Ravn and S{\o}rensen, {Mads P.}",
year = "2021",
month = aug,
doi = "10.1007/s11948-021-00310-z",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
journal = "Science and Engineering Ethics",
issn = "1353-3452",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring the Gray Area

T2 - Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research

AU - Ravn, Tine

AU - Sørensen, Mads P.

PY - 2021/8

Y1 - 2021/8

N2 - This paper explores the gray area of questionable research practices (QRPs) between responsible conduct of research (RCR) and severe research misconduct in the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) (Steneck 2006). Up until now, we have had very little knowledge of disciplinary similarities and differences in QRPs. The paper is the first systematic account of variances and similarities. It reports on the findings of a comprehensive study comprising 22 focus groups on practices and perceptions of QRPs across main areas of research. The paper supports the relevance of the idea of epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina 1999), also when it comes to QRPs. It shows which QRPs researchers from different areas of research (humanities, social sciences, medical sciences, natural sciences, and technical sciences) report as the most severe and prevalent within their fields. Furthermore, it shows where in the research process these self-reported QRPs can be found. This is done by using a five-phase analytical model of the research process (idea generation, research design, data collection, data analysis, scientific publication and reporting). The paper shows that QRPs are closely connected to the distinct research practices within the different areas of research. Many QRPs can therefore only be found within one area of research, and QRPs that cut across main areas often cover relatively different practices. In a few cases, QRPs in one area are considered good research practice in another.

AB - This paper explores the gray area of questionable research practices (QRPs) between responsible conduct of research (RCR) and severe research misconduct in the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) (Steneck 2006). Up until now, we have had very little knowledge of disciplinary similarities and differences in QRPs. The paper is the first systematic account of variances and similarities. It reports on the findings of a comprehensive study comprising 22 focus groups on practices and perceptions of QRPs across main areas of research. The paper supports the relevance of the idea of epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina 1999), also when it comes to QRPs. It shows which QRPs researchers from different areas of research (humanities, social sciences, medical sciences, natural sciences, and technical sciences) report as the most severe and prevalent within their fields. Furthermore, it shows where in the research process these self-reported QRPs can be found. This is done by using a five-phase analytical model of the research process (idea generation, research design, data collection, data analysis, scientific publication and reporting). The paper shows that QRPs are closely connected to the distinct research practices within the different areas of research. Many QRPs can therefore only be found within one area of research, and QRPs that cut across main areas often cover relatively different practices. In a few cases, QRPs in one area are considered good research practice in another.

KW - QRP, disciplinary differences, epistemic culture, research integrity, responsible conduct of research

U2 - 10.1007/s11948-021-00310-z

DO - 10.1007/s11948-021-00310-z

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 34136962

VL - 27

JO - Science and Engineering Ethics

JF - Science and Engineering Ethics

SN - 1353-3452

IS - 4

M1 - 40

ER -