首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Springer Open Choice >The Essential Need for Research Misconduct Allegation Audits
【2h】

The Essential Need for Research Misconduct Allegation Audits

机译:研究不当行为指控审核的基本需求

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Nearly 90 % of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we discuss the laws that empower federal agencies that can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct investigations pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) are overseen by the NSF’s OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over the ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits of the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Specifically, sufficient data do not need to be retained by U.S. research institutions funded by HHS or NSF to allow effective audit of why allegations of research misconduct are dismissed before being seen by faculty inquiry or investigative committees. U.S. federal Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the research misconduct oversight process, would allow a determination of whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. In particular, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9798-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
机译:在美国,将近90%的生物医学研究不端行为的指控被负责任的机构驳回,没有任何教师评估或可审核的记录。最近,美国国会议员抱怨说,对那些发现研究不当行为的人的惩罚太轻,与研究不当行为相关的赠款资金也很少被其他研究人员和纳税人使用。在这里,我们将讨论赋予联邦机构权力以监督生物医学研究不当行为调查的法律:研究完整性办公室(ORI)和监察长办公室(OIG)均位于卫生和公共服务部(HHS)内。由美国国家科学基金会(NSF)资助的与美国物理科学有关的研究不当行为调查由NSF的OIG负责。尽管OIG在处理研究不当行为方面可能比ORI有所改进,但我们发现存在更严重的缺陷,这削弱了对在美国处理研究不当行为指控的有效性进行绩效审核的能力。具体来说,由HHS或NSF资助的美国研究机构无需保留足够的数据,就可以有效地审核为何在教师调查或调查委员会未看到有关研究不当行为指控之前就将其驳回。如果将美国联邦普遍接受的政府审计标准(GAGAS /黄皮书)应用于研究不当行为监督程序,则可以确定对生物医学研究不当行为的指控处理是否真正发挥了作用,如果不能,则应如何改进。特别是,我们建议应根据GAGAS审核标准进行独立的外部同行评审,以立即评估ORI或任何其他类似任务的联邦机构在处理研究不当行为的指控方面的表现。 (doi:10.1007 / s11948-016-9798-6)包含补充材料,授权用户可以使用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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