Download full text
(55.25Kb)
Citation Suggestion
Please use the following Persistent Identifier (PID) to cite this document:
https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-203563
Exports for your reference manager
Research ethics, publication ethics and the dialectics of scientists trying not to behave badly: a comment on the advantages and limitations of Twin Assessment of Clinical Trials (TACT)
[journal article]
Abstract Aim: This comment addresses conflicts of interest in the publication of research results. Subject and Methods: Based on the concept of values in science, the problem of scientific misconduct related to publishing research results is treated hermeneutically. Franz Porzsolt’s approach to assessing stu... view more
Aim: This comment addresses conflicts of interest in the publication of research results. Subject and Methods: Based on the concept of values in science, the problem of scientific misconduct related to publishing research results is treated hermeneutically. Franz Porzsolt’s approach to assessing studies and the implications for solving conflicts of interest are evaluated. Results: It is argued that conflicts of interest reflect the difficulty of balancing values in science and that science would become arbitrary and worthless for sponsors of research if it lacked its traditional values. Conclusion: Keeping scientific values and coping with conflicts of interest are essential for the future credibility and accountability of scientific endeavors. The communitarian approach to Twin Assessment of Clinical Studies might answer both demands.... view less
Classification
Sociology of Science, Sociology of Technology, Research on Science and Technology
Free Keywords
Values; Publication ethics; Conflict of interest
Document language
English
Publication Year
2009
Page/Pages
p. 433-434
Journal
Journal of Public Health, 17 (2009) 6
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-009-0284-3
Status
Postprint; peer reviewed
Licence
PEER Licence Agreement (applicable only to documents from PEER project)