ArticleScience and engineering ethics2019
An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists About Research Integrity.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research Misconduct in Academia: Examining the Views of Academics in a Public University in Ghana.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Article
- Shaping the Field: A Review of the Use of Theory in Research on Research Integrity.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Review
- From chaos to symbiosis: exploring adaptive co-evolution strategies for generative AI and research integrity systems.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- More ethics in the laboratory, please! Scientists' perspectives on ethics in the preclinical phase.Accountability in research · 2025Article
- How Competition for Funding Impacts Scientific Practice: Building Pre-fab Houses but no Cathedrals.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- Empowering the Research Community to Investigate Misconduct and Promote Research Integrity and Ethics: New Regulation in Scandinavia.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- RESPONSE_ABILITY A Card-Based Engagement Method to Support Researchers' Ability to Respond to Integrity Issues.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Elevating the impact of conservation physiology by building a community devoted to excellence, transparency, ethics, integrity and mutual respect.Conservation physiology · 2022Article
- Research Ethical Norms, Guidance and the Internet.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Towards a Research Agenda for Promoting Responsible Research Practices.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2021Article
- Exploring the Gray Area: Similarities and Differences in Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) Across Main Areas of Research.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Atmospheres of science: Experiencing scientific mobility.Social studies of science · 2021Article
- Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) - a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 1) - a multi-actor qualitative study on success in science.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- Responsible research and innovation training programs: implementation and evaluation of the HEIRRI project.Forensic sciences research · 2021Article
- Integrating Integrity: The Organizational Translation of Policies on Research Integrity.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research integrity and misconduct have recently risen to public attention as policy issues. Concern has arisen about divergence between this policy discourse and the language and concerns of scientists. This interview study, carried out in Denmark with a cohort of highly internationalised natural scientists, explores how researchers talk about integrity and good science. It finds, first, that these scientists were largely unaware of the Danish Code of Conduct for Responsible Conduct of Research and indifferent towards the value of such codes; second, that they presented an image of good science as nuanced and thereby as difficult to manage through abstracted, principle-based codes; and third, that they repeatedly pointed to systemic issues both as triggering misconduct and as ethical problems in and of themselves. Research integrity is framed as a part of wider moves to 'responsibilise' science; understood in these terms, resistance to codes of conduct and the representation of integrity as a problem of science as a whole can be seen as a rejection of a neoliberal individualisation of responsibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30251235What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.