Sentences with phrase «research misconduct policy»

Not exact matches

The play is Othello, but he could just as well have been writing about science, where reputation is, in the words of the University of Washington's (UW's) policy on research misconduct, «of paramount importance to a researcher's career.»

In anticipation of a federal - wide definition and policy for research misconduct in 2000, AAAS convened a practicum on research misconduct, where participants had the opportunity to obtain hands - on experience and interact with colleagues and government officials.

Changes in regulatory policy and recent litigation regarding research misconduct have complicated the legal environment for the federal government, colleges and universities.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) in Arlington, Virginia, has decided to double down on its implementation of a congressionally mandated policy aimed at reducing research misconduct among NSF - funded scientists, despite a new report that notes problems with the agency's approach.

The NIH and the NSF say they should have enough staff to handle the flood of new grant requests, and both have introduced formal policies on research misconduct.

That being said, the inquiry into misconduct should proceed according to the standard policies at the researchers» institution, with the media being notified only if the parties in question are indeed deemed guilty of research fraud.

Nick Steneck, director of research ethics and integrity at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, says authorities worldwide should adopt a uniform misconduct policy that provides clear guidance not only on data falsification and fabrication but also on lesser ethical breaches — such as self - plagiarism.

Specifically, she developed the institutional policies for human subjects in research, responsible conduct of research, conflict of interest, and research misconduct.

Implementation Guidance for Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy «Federal Policy on Research Misconduct.»

Federal Policy on Research Misconduct, 65 F.R. 76260 - 76264, December 6, 2000.

For further information, see DOTs Implementation Guidance for Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Federal Policy on Research Misconduct, dated February 2002.

there are federal laws and policies implicated in this matter, including [the NSF's] «Research Misconduct» regulations, Title 45 CFR Part 689, that got beyond the scope of Penn State's inquiry.

The reason for having Dr. Pell examine the matter was that the accusations, when placed in an academic context, could be construed as allegations of research misconduct, which would constitute a violation of Penn State policy,

Allegations may be the result of misinterpreted communication or misunderstanding and therefore, they may be subject to resolution on a collegial basis, through discussion (s) designed to ascertain whether there is reason to believe that research misconduct may have occurred in violation of this policy.

If the results of such discussion (s) confirm the possibility of research misconduct in violation of this policy, the matter should be reported, in writing, to the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduateresearch misconduct in violation of this policy, the matter should be reported, in writing, to the Vice President for Research and Dean of the GraduateResearch and Dean of the Graduate School.

These discussions should have confirmed «the possibility of research misconduct in violation of this policy».

The University's misconduct policies and the Office of Research Integrity regulations preclude discussion of any information pertaining to this case with others who were not directly involved in the investigation.

The Hospital had a research policy which defined «research misconduct» as including falsification, fabrication and material non-compliance with accepted standards and regulations.

The policy also set out a 2 - step process for addressing allegations of research misconduct: 1) an inquiry is launched to determine if there are «reasonable grounds to proceed to an investigation»; and 2) if there are sufficient grounds to proceed, a formal investigation committee is formed.