In Defense of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Response to Radder

Jeroen de Ridder; Lex Bouter; Tamarinde Haven; Rik Peels; Joeri Tijdink; Maurice P. Zeegers

doi:10.1080/08989621.2023.2167599

In Defense of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Response to Radder

Jeroen de Ridder^*, Lex Bouter, Tamarinde Haven, Rik Peels, Joeri Tijdink, Maurice P. Zeegers

^*Corresponding author for this work

Department of Political Science - Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaper › Comment/debate/letter to the editor › Research › peer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We assess Radder’s criticisms of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and show that they either miss their mark or depend on controversial background assumptions about the purpose of the Code. Although Radder raises important questions about the broader roles and purposes of research in society, his conclusion that the Code should be revised in the ways he proposes is unjustified.

Original language	English
Journal	Accountability in Research
Volume	30
Issue	5
Pages (from-to)	276-283
Number of pages	8
ISSN	0898-9621
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2167599
Publication status	Published - Jul 2023

Keywords

Mertonian norms
Netherlands code of conduct for research integrity
patenting
Research Integrity
Responsible research and innovation

Access to Document

10.1080/08989621.2023.2167599

Cite this

@article{aa0e4b118778448db871f890484f629d,

title = "In Defense of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Response to Radder",

abstract = "We assess Radder{\textquoteright}s criticisms of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and show that they either miss their mark or depend on controversial background assumptions about the purpose of the Code. Although Radder raises important questions about the broader roles and purposes of research in society, his conclusion that the Code should be revised in the ways he proposes is unjustified.",

keywords = "Mertonian norms, Netherlands code of conduct for research integrity, patenting, Research Integrity, Responsible research and innovation",

author = "{de Ridder}, Jeroen and Lex Bouter and Tamarinde Haven and Rik Peels and Joeri Tijdink and Zeegers, {Maurice P.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.",

year = "2023",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1080/08989621.2023.2167599",

language = "English",

volume = "30",

pages = "276--283",

journal = "Accountability in Research",

issn = "0898-9621",

publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",

number = "5",

}

In Defense of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Response to Radder. / de Ridder, Jeroen; Bouter, Lex; Haven, Tamarinde et al.
In: Accountability in Research, Vol. 30, No. 5, 07.2023, p. 276-283.

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaper › Comment/debate/letter to the editor › Research › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - In Defense of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

T2 - Response to Radder

AU - de Ridder, Jeroen

AU - Bouter, Lex

AU - Haven, Tamarinde

AU - Peels, Rik

AU - Tijdink, Joeri

AU - Zeegers, Maurice P.

PY - 2023/7

Y1 - 2023/7

N2 - We assess Radder’s criticisms of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and show that they either miss their mark or depend on controversial background assumptions about the purpose of the Code. Although Radder raises important questions about the broader roles and purposes of research in society, his conclusion that the Code should be revised in the ways he proposes is unjustified.

AB - We assess Radder’s criticisms of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and show that they either miss their mark or depend on controversial background assumptions about the purpose of the Code. Although Radder raises important questions about the broader roles and purposes of research in society, his conclusion that the Code should be revised in the ways he proposes is unjustified.

KW - Mertonian norms

KW - Netherlands code of conduct for research integrity

KW - patenting

KW - Research Integrity

KW - Responsible research and innovation

U2 - 10.1080/08989621.2023.2167599

DO - 10.1080/08989621.2023.2167599

M3 - Comment/debate/letter to the editor

C2 - 36708135

AN - SCOPUS:85147757014

SN - 0898-9621

VL - 30

SP - 276

EP - 283

JO - Accountability in Research

JF - Accountability in Research

IS - 5

ER -

In Defense of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Response to Radder

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this