臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：科學研究欺騙的防杜方法研究
書刊名：資訊傳播與圖書館學
作者：賴鼎銘／葉乃靜
作者(外文)：Lai, Ting-ming／Yeh, Nei-ching
出版日期：1998
卷期：4:3
頁次：頁22-38
主題關鍵詞：科學研究欺騙；同儕審查；出版品撤回；實驗複製；扒糞者；Scientific frauds；Peer review；Retraction of publication；Replication of results；Whistle-blower
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(1) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:44
科學研究欺騙不僅對學術社群造成不小的困擾，更讓整個社會付出可觀的代價。
也因此，找尋有效的防杜之道，已是當前科學社群非常關注的課題。因應這樣的需要，本研
究分析了幾種當前學術界採行的防杜方法，以供國內參考。這其中包括同儕審查、扒糞者、
出版品撤回、實驗複製等，這些防杜方法的優缺點在本文中皆有所探討。
Scientific frauds have caused much problems and confusion within
scientific community as well as in society. The main issue right now is to try
to find the best methods, in order to prevent the frauds happen again and again.
In this article, the authors introduce several methods (such as peer review,
whistle-blower, retraction of publication, replication of results, etc.) which
have been applied in Western societies for decades to prevent the frauds, the
advantages and disadvantages of the above methods are also presented.
期刊論文
1.Dalton, Margaret Stieg(1995)。Refereeing of Scholarly Works for Primary Publishing。Annual Review of Information Science and Technology，30，213-250。  new window
2.Anderson, Christopher(1992)。Bill Would Force Journals to Follow Misconduct Rules。Nature，357(6373)，7。  new window
3.Stein, G.(1991)。Letter to the Editor。Journal of the American Society for Information Science，42，574。  new window
4.(1992)。Journals as Policeman。Nature，357，2。  new window
5.(1983)。The Harvard Fraud Case: Where does the Problem Lie?。Journal of American Medical Association，249，1798。  new window
6.Hamilton, David P.(1992)。Reorganization of OSI Now a Reality。Science，256，1383。  new window
7.Altman, Larry、Melcher, Laurie(1983)。Fraud in Science。British Medical Journal，286，2004。  new window
8.Broad, William J.(1981)。Fraud and the Structure of Science: Is Fraud a Trivial Excrescence on the Process of Science or do the Recent Cases have Deeper Roots?。Science，212，140-141。  new window
9.Cicchetti, Domenic V.(1991)。The Reliability of Peer Review for Manuscript and Grant Submissions: A Cross-Disciplinary Investigation。The Behavioral and Brain Sciences，14，119。  new window
10.Majerus, Philip W.(1982)。Fraud in Medical Research: Presidential Address Delivered Before the 74th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Clinical Investigation。The Journal of Clinical Investigation，70，214。  new window
11.Banner, James M.(1988)。Preserving the Integity of Peer Review。Scholarly Publishing，70，111。  new window
12.(1987)。Fraud, Libel and the Literature。Nature，325，182。  new window
13.Sweitzer, Bobbie Jean、Cullen, David J.(1994)。How Well Does a Journal's Peer Review Process Function?: A Survey of Authors' Opinions。Journal of American Medical Association，272，153。  new window
14.Weinstein, Deena(1979)。Fraud in Science。Social Science Quarterly，59，644。  new window
15.Sechrest, Lee、Hottman, Paul E.(1982)。The Philosophical Underpinnings of Peer Review。Professional Psychology，13，15-17。  new window
16.Kiesler, Charles A.(1991)。Confusion Between Reviewer Reliability and Wise Editorial and Funding Decisions。The Behavioral and Brain Sciences，14，152。  new window
17.DeFelice, Louis J.(1991)。Why Scientists Cover up Fraud。Nature，353，104。  new window
18.McNutt, Robert A.、Evans, Arthur T.、Fletcher, Robert H.、Fletcher, Suzanne W.(1990)。The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review。Journal of American Medical Association，263，1374。  new window
19.Armstrong, J. Scott(1982)。The Ombudsman: Is Review by Peers as Fair as It Appears?。Interfaces，12，63。  new window
20.Woolf, Patricia K.(1987)。Ensuring Integrity in Biomedical Publication。Journal of American Medical Association，258，3424。  new window
21.Garfield, Eugene(1990)。Response to the Panel on Evaluation of Scientific Information and the Impact of New Information Technology。Journal of the American Society for Information Science，41，229。  new window
22.Judson, Horace Freeland(1994)。Structural Transformations of the Sciences and the End of Peer Review。Journal of American Medical Association，272，92。  new window
23.Leslie, Larry Z.(1989)。Manuscript Review: a View from Below。Scholarly Publishing，20，126。  new window
24.Bowers, Raymond(1975)。The Peer System on Trial。American Scientist，63，624。  new window
25.Dickersin, Kay(1990)。The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for its Occurrence。Journal of American Medical Association，263，1385。  new window
26.Sharp, David W.(1990)。What Can and Should be Done to Reduce Publication Bias?。Journal of American Medical Association，263，1391。  new window
27.Horrobin, David F.(1982)。Peer Review: A Philosophically Faculty Concept which is Proving Disastrous for Science。The Behavioral and Brain Sciences，5，218。  new window
28.Koshland, Daniel E.(1987)。Fraud in Science。Science，235，1447。  new window
29.(1992)。NAS Sizes up Scientific Misconduct。Science News，141，303。  new window
30.Hamilton, David P.(1992)。OSI Misconduct Model Shunned in Europe。Science，256，11。  new window
31.Honig, William M.(1982)。Peer Review in the Physical Sciences: An Editor's View。The Behavioral and Brain Sciences，5，217。  new window
32.Culliton, Barbara J.(1991)。Popovic Rebuts。Nature，353，289。  new window
33.Stewart, Walter W.、Feder, Ned(1987)。The Integrity of the Scientific Literature。Nature，325，210。  new window
34.Kochan, Carol Ann、Budd, John M.(1992)。The Persistence of Fraud in the Literature: The Darsee Case。Journal of the American Society for Information Science，43(7)，488-493。  new window
35.Kramer, David(1992)。Report Backs Whistleblower。Nature，356，469。  new window
36.Roediger, Henry L.(1991)。Is Unreliability in Peer Review Harmful?。The Behavioral and Brain Sciences，14，160。  new window
37.Moran, Gordon、Mallory, Michael(1991)。Some Ethical Considerations Regarding Scholarly Communications。Library Trends，40，348。  new window
38.(1992)。Whistleblower Prize for O'Toole。Science，257，27。  new window
39.Randal, J.(1989)。Congress Probes Research Funding。The Washington Post，9。  new window
40.Pfeifer, Mark P.、Snodgrass, Gwendolyn L.(1990)。The Continued Use of Retracted, Invalid Scientific Literature。Journal of American Medical Association，263，1421。  new window
41.Kotzin, Sheldon、Schuyler, Peri L.(1989)。NLM's Practices for Handling Errata and Retractions。Bulletin of the Medical Library Association，77，337。  new window
42.Lewin, Benjamin(1989)。Fraud and the Fabric of Science。Cell，57，700。  new window
43.Hammerschmidt, Dale E.、Gross, Alan G.(1995)。The Problem of Biomedical Farud: A Model for Retropective and Prospective Action。Scholarly Publishing，27，11。  new window
44.Engler, Robert L.、Covell, James W.、Friedman, Paul J.、Kitcher, Philip S.、Peters, Richard M.(1987)。Misrepresentation and Responsibility in Medical Research。New England Journal of Medicine，317(22)，1383-1389。  new window
45.Chubin, Daryl E.(1985)。Misconduct in Research: an Issue of Science Policy and Practice。Minerva，23，187。  new window
46.Crawford, Susan、Stucki, Loretta(1990)。Peer Review and the Changing Research Record。Journal of the American Society for Information Science，41(3)，223-228。  new window
47.Abelson, Philip H.(1990)。Mechanisms for Evaluating Scientific Information and the Role of Peer Review。Journal of the American Society for Information Science，41(3)，216-222。  new window
圖書
1.Neill, S. D.(1992)。Dilemmas in the Study of Information: Exploring the Boundaries of Information Science。Westport, C. T.。  new window
2.張彥(1994)。科學價值系統論：對科學家和科學技術的社會學研究。科學價值系統論：對科學家和科學技術的社會學研究。北京市。  延伸查詢new window
3.Zurer, Pamels S.(1987)。Misconduct in Research: It May be More Widespread Than Chemists Like to Think。Chemical and Engineering News。  new window
4.Morton, H .C.、Price, A. J.(1989)。The ACLS Survey of Scholars--Final Report of Views on Publications, Computers and Libraries。The ACLS Survey of Scholars--Final Report of Views on Publications, Computers and Libraries。Lanham, MD。  new window
5.Celine, L.(1975)。II Dotter Semmelweis。II Dotter Semmelweis。Milano, Italy。  new window
6.Lock, S.(1985)。A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine。London, England：Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust。  new window
7.Roman, Mark B.(1988)。When Good Scientists Turn Bad。Discover。  new window
其他
1.江才健(1996)。科學研究首重原創性發展策略待檢討：由李遠哲的科技改革之議談起，臺北。  延伸查詢new window
2.Medford, N. J.(1995)。Published for the ASIS by Information in Today。  new window
3.(1995)。學術界應以專業精神與責任倫理為社會示範：社論，臺北。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：1042（臺灣：1033，外國：9） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2219088 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68013492
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上