手法を比較
選択した手法を並べて確認できます。異なる行はハイライト表示されます。
| 研究における利益相反× | 研究不正行為× | |
|---|---|---|
| 分野 | 研究倫理 | 研究倫理 |
| 系統 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 提唱年≠ | 2013 | 2005 |
| 提唱者≠ | Multiple (NIH, ICMJE, institutional COI policies) | U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) / National Science Foundation; International standards via COPE |
| 種類≠ | Guideline | Standard |
| 原典≠ | International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2023). Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. ICMJE Recommendations for Manuscript Authorship. link ↗ | U.S. Office of Research Integrity. (2005). Public Health Service Policy on Research Misconduct. 42 CFR Part 93. Federal Register. link ↗ |
| 別名≠ | COI, Conflicts of Interest | FFP, Research Fraud, Scientific Misconduct |
| 関連 | 3 | 3 |
| 概要≠ | A conflict of interest (COI) in research exists when a researcher has financial, professional, or personal interests that might bias their research judgment or outcomes. Conflicts are inherent in research communities—researchers often have legitimate stakes in their research's success—but unmanaged conflicts compromise research integrity and public trust. Managing COI requires transparent disclosure, institutional oversight, and proactive mitigation strategies to minimize bias risk while allowing legitimate research to proceed. | Research misconduct comprises intentional or reckless fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, conducting, or reporting research. Formally defined by U.S. federal policy (42 CFR Part 93, Office of Research Integrity), misconduct is distinguished from honest error, negligence, and good-faith disagreements about research methods or interpretation. Misconduct undermines scientific integrity, harms subjects and institutions, wastes research resources, and erodes public trust in science. Allegations are investigated formally with due process; proven misconduct results in sanctions ranging from publication correction to career-ending bans. |
| ScholarGateデータセット ↗ |
|
|