• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Research policy >Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment
【24h】

Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment

机译：研究诚信吗？研究评估时代的抄袭，自我抄袭和强制引用

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

This extended editorial asks whether peer-review is continuing to operate effectively in policing research misconduct in the academic world. It explores the mounting problems encountered by editors of journals such as Research Policy (RP) in dealing with research misconduct. Misconduct can take a variety of forms. Among the most serious are plagiarism and data fabrication or falsification, although fortunately these still seem to be relatively rare. More common are problems involving redundant publication and self-plagiarism, where the boundary between acceptable behaviour (attempting to exploit the results of one's research as fully and widely as possible) and unacceptable behaviour (in particular, misleading the reader as to the originality of one's publications) is rather indistinct and open to interpretation. With the aid of a number of case-studies, this editorial tries to set out clearly where RP Editors regard that boundary as lying. It also notes with concern a new form of misconduct among certain journal editors, who attempt to engineer an increase in their journal's 'impact factor' through a practice of 'coercive citation'. Such problems with research integrity would appear to be unintended, and certainly undesirable, consequences of the growing trend to quantify research performance through various indicators.
机译：这篇扩展的社论询问同行评审是否继续有效地控制了学术界的研究失当行为。它探讨了诸如《研究政策》（RP）之类的期刊编辑在处理研究不当行为时遇到的日益严重的问题。行为不端可以采取多种形式。其中最严重的是窃和数据捏造或伪造，尽管幸运的是，这些似乎仍然相对罕见。更常见的是涉及多余出版物和自and窃的问题，即可接受的行为（试图尽可能全面地研究某人的研究结果）与不可接受的行为（尤其是在误导读者方面误导读者）之间的界限。出版物）相当模糊且易于解释。在大量案例研究的帮助下，本社论试图明确阐明RP编辑认为该界限是何处。它还关切地注意到某些期刊编辑中一种新的不当行为形式，他们试图通过“强制引用”的方式来增加期刊的“影响因子”。通过各种指标量化研究绩效的增长趋势的结果，似乎具有研究完整性的此类问题是意料之外的，并且肯定是不希望的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号