Research Misconduct as White-Collar Crime by Rita Faria

Author:Rita Faria
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9783319734354
Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Scientific and disciplinary field

Type

Total

Academic career

Obtaining PhD

Publication

Funding

Undefined

Exact sciences

5

3

7

4

0

19

Social sciences

7

2

2

0

3

14

Law /philosophy

2

2

0

0

0

4

Total

14

7

9

4

3

38

When discussing peer review in scientific publications, while acknowledging that it also intends to be a quality control mechanism for publishable research, interviewees questioned whether it is effective in avoiding RM and bias. Some mentioned that it has problems and inefficiencies that are probably due to the scientific community ’s size: ‘I worry a little bit about the ethics associated with peer review because we are such a small country and everybody knows everybody’ (S2). In such cases, anonymity as a guarantee of objectivity may not be possible, especially in specialized areas with strong competition . Such competition , and the prospect of authors being identified by blind peer reviewers, may introduce non-scientific criteria into the process. On the topic of peer review for grant awarding and funding , interviewees who identified problems with existing mechanisms worried about the fact that some peers assessing may have information that does not follow from the submission process, with competition being ‘hyped’ as a result: ‘it’s very competitive, if professor “Smith” gets it [funding ], then I won’t get it’ (S2). They also expressed concern over criteria for funding being manipulated and grants awarded to candidates closer to the jury. Another perceived cause had to do with scarce resources , especially funding , and the sense that those resources are controlled by a handful of scholars who distribute it as they choose.

All this considered, it is possible to postulate that scarcities of monetary resources (funding ), human resources (research assistants), and opportunities for publishing are at the heart of conflicts and competition in HEIs . The scientific community interacts whenever it has to decide on the scientific merit and quality of peers, and from there it goes on to distribute rewards accordingly. In this process, power -plays take place and, according to interviewees, may have the aim of guaranteeing the status quo, a school of thought, or the survival of a group or a network. The interviews conducted are filled with expressions such as ‘chess play’ and ‘civil war’, which were used to refer to an organizational environment where the ongoing activities are not only scientific but also permeable to mundane issues such as gaining access to and keeping positions of power . This would explain why groups or divisions emerge. The group that ‘wins’ resources seems to automatically increase its chances for success, especially in terms of funding or equipment; thus, differential access and differential allocation of resources and opportunities are developed.

While interviewees from the law /philosophy group seemed to be somewhat protected from questions related to peer review in publishing and funding , all scientific areas are prone to issues arising from perceptions of biased assessment in appointment or advancement in an academic career . In fact, all scholars have to undergo through these stages, but not all have to publish or obtain funding . Interviewees from the exact sciences , on the other hand, seemed to be more aware of biased peer

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.