Descriptor
| Fraud | 2 |
| Higher Education | 2 |
| Research Methodology | 2 |
| Scientific Research | 2 |
| Scientists | 2 |
| Administrative Policy | 1 |
| Attitudes | 1 |
| Beliefs | 1 |
| Biochemistry | 1 |
| Federal Regulation | 1 |
| Government Role | 1 |
| More ▼ | |
Source
| Journal of Higher Education | 2 |
Author
| Braxton, John M. | 2 |
| Bayer, Alan E. | 1 |
| Fox, Mary Frank | 1 |
Publication Type
| Journal Articles | 2 |
| Opinion Papers | 1 |
| Reports - Evaluative | 1 |
| Reports - Research | 1 |
Education Level
Audience
| Administrators | 2 |
| Practitioners | 2 |
| Researchers | 2 |
Location
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Peer reviewedBraxton, John M.; Bayer, Alan E. – Journal of Higher Education, 1994
A survey of 334 biochemists identified 5 patterns of attitudes and beliefs about taking action for scientific misconduct: (1) reputational harm, (2) sanction criteria, (3) whistleblower stigmatization, (4) professional etiquette, and (5) ideological desensitization. Influences of intraprofessional status, departmental cohesion, institutional…
Descriptors: Attitudes, Beliefs, Biochemistry, Fraud
Peer reviewedFox, Mary Frank; Braxton, John M. – Journal of Higher Education, 1994
A discussion of misconduct in scientific research looks at the roles of several segments of the scientific community (federal government, universities, scholarly journals, and individual scientists) in exercising control of misconduct. Limitations of their roles and overall implications for policy are examined. (MSE)
Descriptors: Administrative Policy, Federal Regulation, Fraud, Government Role
