Porównaj metody
Przeglądaj wybrane metody obok siebie; wiersze, które się różnią, są wyróżnione.
| Raport Belmonta× | Nadużycie w badaniach naukowych× | |
|---|---|---|
| Dziedzina | Etyka badań naukowych | Etyka badań naukowych |
| Rodzina | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Rok powstania≠ | 1979 | 2005 |
| Twórca≠ | National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (US DHEW) | U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) / National Science Foundation; International standards via COPE |
| Typ≠ | Framework | Standard |
| Źródło pierwotne≠ | National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. link ↗ | U.S. Office of Research Integrity. (2005). Public Health Service Policy on Research Misconduct. 42 CFR Part 93. Federal Register. link ↗ |
| Inne nazwy≠ | Belmont Principles, Three Ethical Principles | FFP, Research Fraud, Scientific Misconduct |
| Pokrewne≠ | 5 | 3 |
| Podsumowanie≠ | The Belmont Report (1979) is the foundational US ethical framework for human subjects research, established by the National Commission following the Tuskegee Syphilis Study scandal. It articulates three core principles—Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice—that form the basis for institutional review and regulatory oversight of human research globally. Every researcher conducting human studies must understand and apply these principles. | 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. |
| ScholarGateZbiór danych ↗ |
|
|