Norman Edmund’s Educational Blog

In addition to the two previous provisions defining findings of research misconduct, the one above applies. Charging anyone with misconduct is serious business. Thus, the government requires that there be a preponderance of evidence to support the charges.
Let’s define “research process”:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines the noun research as “(1) Scholarly or scientific investigation or […]

Misconduct must include three elements listed in my May 5, 2006 comments. This is the second necessary element. There are occasional frauds done intentionally or knowingly, but the ones that present the greater danger and uncertainty are those done recklessly.
In my comments of May 5, 2006 I point out that not doing a thorough search […]

In my May 5, 2006 comments, the first finding of research misconduct required under Federal regulations was
“A finding of research misconduct requires that:
There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community.”
In my May 12, 2006 comments, I established that educational research is covered by the regulations in footnote 2.
It is my […]

In the Federal regulations regarding research misconduct (Federal Register, vol. 65, no. 235, December 6, 2006), footnote 2 says:
“Research, as used herein, includes all basic, applied, and demonstration research in all fields of science, engineering, and mathematics. This includes, but is not limited to, research in economics, education, linguistics, medicine, psychology, social sciences, statistics, and […]

Under Federal regulations as published in the Federal Register, vol 65, no. 235, December 6, 2000, findings are defined as:
“A finding of research misconduct requires that:
There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and
The misconduct be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly; and
The allegation be proven by a preponderance of […]

Definition in the Federal Regulations - “Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit.”
On the surface this may not seem as important as fabrication and falsification. However, the smooth functioning of the whole system of science depends on honesty and a devotion to cooperation, respect, proper […]

Definition in the federal regulations:
“Falsification is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.”
There have been cases in which researchers deliberately and intentionally falsified their research. This type of activity is not tolerated in science. Researchers should realize that it will usually be detected sooner or later in the peer review process.
A […]

(Note: I will be posting only once per week while doing the series on integrity.)
Fabrication involves violation of honesty, the basic feature of the integrity of the research process.
In this process the researcher deceives by making up results or altering actual results and reporting them in an effort to deceive everyone. In many ways it […]

Scientists have always been concerned about the integrity of the research process. This interest has increased now that the federal government has instituted more regulations about it. More information can be obtained by going to www.ostp.gov. From the site:
I. Research Misconduct Defined
Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing […]

The March 18, 2006 issue of New Scientist (page 7) has a news note that “journal editors and publishers are not doing enough to limit misconduct and fraud, according to a survey published by COPE, the U.K.s Committee on Public Ethics.”
It is difficult for editors to detect fraud, especially if the perpetrator is smart enough […]