CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 225Academic integrity and plagiarismResearch, Science, and AcademiaAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Responsible Conduct of Research

Shamoo, Adil E., Resnik, David B.·2022
DOI 10.1093/oso/9780197547090.001.0001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Responsible Conduct of Research provides an overview of ethical, legal, and social issues in scientific research for science students, trainees, and professional scientists. Written by two leading scholars in the field of research ethics, one with a background in natural science and the other with a background in philosophy and law, the book incorporates insights from these diverse disciplines throughout the text. The book provides in-depth analyses of a wide array of topics, including ethical theory and decision-making, misconduct, questionable research practices, research record-keeping, data sharing, data auditing, reproducibility, authorship, publication, peer review, intellectual property, conflict of interest, mentoring, safe research environment, animal experimentation, research with human subjects, and social responsibility. The book also includes interesting case studies and provocative questions at the end of each chapter that can serve as a basis for further analysis and discussion. The concluding chapter of the book describes some steps that researchers, institutional officials, government agencies, and scientific organizations can take to promote ethical conduct in scientific research. The 4th edition of Responsible Conduct of Research includes updated references and discussions of new and evolving topics, such as digital image manipulation, text recycling (sometimes called self-plagiarism), retractions, publication on pre-print servers, sexual and other forms of harassment, research with human biological samples, revisions to the Common Rule for research with human subjects, dual use research, the COVID-19 pandemic, providing science advice, and interactions with the media.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oso/9780197547090.001.0001

Cites

475 of 475 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs should not be named as authors because they cannot be held legally and morally responsible for what they do, and authorship implies responsibility.

    “In summary, LLMs should not be named as authors because they cannot be held legally and morally responsible for what they do, and authorship implies responsibility (Copyright Review Board, 2022; Shamoo and Resnik, 2022).”

    From The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts (2023) · cites this paper as Shamoo and Resnik, 2022

  • Designating an LLM as an author is ethically problematic.

    “Although it is important to disclose how an LLM has been used to write or edit a manuscript, designating an LLM as an author is ethically problematic because widely accepted journal guidelines, such as those provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and research norms, such as those articulated by Shamoo and Resnik (2022) and Briggle and Mitcham (2012), imply that”

    From The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts (2023) · cites this paper as Shamoo and Resnik, 2022

  • In research, accountability is essential for promoting integrity, reproducibility, rigor, and other important epistemic and moral values.

    “In research, accountability is essential for promoting integrity, reproducibility, rigor, and other important epistemic and moral values (Shamoo and Resnik, 2022).”

    From The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts (2023) · cites this paper as Shamoo and Resnik, 2022

  • Widely accepted journal guidelines and research norms imply that authors must be willing to be responsible and accountable for the content of the manuscript.

    “Although it is important to disclose how an LLM has been used to write or edit a manuscript, designating an LLM as an author is ethically problematic because widely accepted journal guidelines, such as those provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and research norms, such as those articulated by Shamoo and Resnik (2022) and Briggle and Mitcham (2012), imply that”

    From The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts (2023) · cites this paper as Shamoo and Resnik, 2022

  • Ethical principles, including openness, honesty, transparency, efficient use of resources, and fair allocation of credit, demand disclosing the use of LLMs.

    “Ethical principles, including openness, honesty, transparency, efficient use of resources, and fair allocation of credit (Shamoo and Resnik, 2022) demand disclosing the use of LLMs.”

    From The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts (2023) · cites this paper as Shamoo and Resnik, 2022

Cites

3 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B.
Affiliations
  • Professor, University of Maryland School of Medicine
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
ORCID
Resnik, David B.
Publisher
Oxford University PressNew York
Published
2022-05-19
DOI
10.1093/oso/9780197547090.001.0001
OpenAlex
W4280589601
Cited by
224
References
474
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
37.30
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
responsible conduct of research, research ethics, research misconduct, questionable research practices, data sharing, data auditing, reproducibility, authorship, peer review, intellectual property, conflicts of interest, mentoring, animal experimentation, human subjects research, Common Rule, dual-use research, COVID-19 pandemic, scientific advice, science and media, image editing, self-plagiarism, retraction, harassment, human samples

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review