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：探討研究生及研究人員對負責任研究行為及學術論文作者列名之認知：跨學術背景之比較研究
作者：潘璿安
作者(外文)：Pan, Jui-An
校院名稱：國立交通大學
系所名稱：教育研究所
指導教授：周倩
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2018
主題關鍵詞：雙層次測驗；另有概念；教學法；負責任研究行為；研究誠信；研究倫理；學術作者；two-tier test；alternative concept；pedagogy；responsible conduct of research (RCR)；research integrity；research ethics；authorship
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(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1
本研究以研究倫理內涵中的「負責任研究行為」（responsible conduct of research，RCR）和「學術論文作者列名」（scholarly authorship）兩項概念為主題，透過執行兩個子研究〈子研究 1：探討臺灣及美國研究生對於負責任研究行為之另有概念〉和〈子研究 2：初探臺灣研究人員涉入有問題之學術作者列名的原因〉，探討不同學術背景的研究生及研究人員，在這兩個概念上的的認知、看法或態度。
首先，本研究在子研究 1 中，採用自編之雙層次測驗試題「負責任研究行為之推理測驗」（Responsible Conduct of Research Reasoning Test，簡稱 RCRRT）作為主要的研究工具，以探究臺灣及美國研究生在負責任研究行為議題上的另有概念，以及雙方潛在之認知差異。研究結果的重點包含：（1）美國學生在 RCRRT 上的表現，顯著優於臺灣學生，代表他們對測驗中所呈現之道德情境，擁有較佳的判斷及推理能力；（2）臺灣學生的另有概念，特別聚焦在一些涉及學術作者列名的相關議題；（3）女性學生和博士生在 RCRRT 上的表現，分別優於男性學生和碩士生，以及（4）本研究之參與學生的研究倫理教育經驗（包括有無參與過相關的教學，以及所接受的教學法），在他們的道德推理和判斷過程中，展現了顯著的影響力。
其次，本研究在子研究 2 中，採用自編之之研究問卷「臺灣有問題之學術作者列名調查」（Investigation of Questionable Authorship in Taiwan，簡稱 IQAT）作為主要的研究工具，以瞭解臺灣的博士生和專職研究人員，涉入有問題之學術作者掛名的可能原因，以及他們對有問題之學術作者列名現象的態度。研究結果的重點包含：（1）臺灣博士生之所以會涉入有問題的學術作者列名，可能是為了實現特定的學業目標，或為了遵循他們所認知到的學術界常規－即便他們對這些常規的認知不一定正確；（2）臺灣專職研究人員之所以會涉入有問題的學術作者列名，可能是為了完成特定的研究績效，或為了建立或強化他們和其他研究人員間的學術社交關係；（3）本研究的參與者傾向認同在臺灣的學術界中，有問題之學術作者列名是一種長期存在但很少被揭露的現象；他們也擔憂臺灣過去所發生的研究倫理違規事件（即 SAGE 事件），可能會影響臺灣在國際上的學術聲望，以及（4）參與者的學術位階、研究領域，以及其附屬研究機構之類型，會使他們在某些關於學術作者列名的議題上，產生認同度上的差異。
最後，本研究依據研究結果，分別針對研究倫理教育之教學方法、學術作者列名在實務上的合宜操作及衝突排解，以及未來之相關實徵研究的議題和方向，提供了一些想法及具體建議，以供讀者及後續研究者參考。
The core purpose of the present research was to examine Taiwanese researchers’ current understandings of responsible conduct of research (RCR) and further propose appropriate instructional applications for advancing their perceptions of related issues. This research consisted of two studies: Study 1: A Comparative Study on Graduate Students’ Alternative Concepts of Responsible Conduct of Research in Taiwan and the United States and Study 2: Questionable Scholarly Authorship in Taiwan: A Primary Investigation of Researchers’ Rationales behind the Practice.
Study 1 first investigated Taiwanese and U.S. graduate students’ reasoning and judgment in 10 RCR-related scenario-question sets presented in a two-tier diagnostic testing format (i.e., the Responsible Conduct of Research Reasoning Test, RCRRT). The major research findings of Study 1 were as follows. First, U.S. graduate students generally had better scores on the RCRRT than either group of Taiwanese graduate students. As such, the U.S. students most likely had better RCR reasoning and were able to accurately judge the given RCR-contexts. Second, Taiwanese students had some alternative concepts, particularly surrounding issues involving scholarly authorship. Third, gender and academic level played significant roles in students’ RCR reasoning and judgment; specifically, female and doctoral students performed better in the RCRRTs than male and master’s students, respectively, across different graduate programs. Fourth, students’ experiences of RCR instruction and the delivery approach of the instruction featured heavily in their RCR reasoning and judgment.
Study 2 explored Taiwanese researchers’ perceptions of questionable scholarly authorship (QSA) by using a self-reported questionnaire, referred to as the Investigation of Questionable Authorship in Taiwan (IQAT). The studied issues included the probable reasons behind researchers’ involvement in QSA and their attitudes toward the phenomenon of QSA in Taiwan. The following major research findings of Study 2 were concluded. First, the possible rationales behind Taiwanese doctoral students’ involvement in QSA were mainly attributable to two factors. The first factor was their ambition of accomplishing particular academic objectives, and the second factor was their feeling of reciprocal obligation. Second, the possible rationales behind Taiwanese research associates’ involvement in questionable authorship were also mainly attributable to two factors. The first was their attempt to achieve particular research objectives, and the second factor was their ambition of strengthening social connections with other researchers through co-authoring or other authoring practices. Third, the participating researchers tended to agree that QSA in Taiwanese academia exhibited ubiquitous, long-standing, and rarely reported characteristics. They also generally believed that the SAGE scandal of research misconduct in Taiwan had potentially undermined Taiwan’s reputation in global science. Fourth, this study indicated that researchers’ academic status, research discipline, and type of affiliated institution significantly influenced their response differences for particular authorship-related issues.
Finally, based on the findings, this research provides some ideas and specific suggestions regarding the pedagogical implications of future RCR instruction, practical operational guidelines for ethical scholarly authorship, and future avenues of research for readers’ and colleagues’ reference.
3rd World Conference on Research Integrity. (2013). Montreal statement on research integrity in cross-boundary research collaborations. Retrieved from https://www.etikkom.no/en/library/practical-information/legal-statutes-and-guidelines/montreal-statement-on-research-integrity-in-cross-boundary-research-collaborations/

Akbulut, Y., Şendağ, S., Birinci, G., Kılıçer, K., Şahin, M. C., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2008). Exploring the types and reasons of Internet-triggered academic dishonesty among Turkish undergraduate students: Development of Internet-Triggered Academic Dishonesty Scale (ITADS). Computers & Education, 51(1), 463-473. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.003

Albert, T., & Wager, E. (2003). How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/2003pdf12_0.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2010). 1.13 Publication credit. In G. R. VandenBos (Ed.), Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.) (pp. 18-19). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 853-860. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c

Antes, A. L. (2014). A systematic approach to instruction in research ethics. Accountability in Research, 21(1), 50-67. doi:10.1080/08989621.2013.822269

Antes, A. L., English, T., Baldwin, K. A., & DuBois, J. M. (2018). The role of culture and acculturation in researchers’ perceptions of rules in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 361-391. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9876-4

Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 19(5), 379-402. doi:10.1080/10508420903035380

Antes, A. L., Wang, X., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2010). Evaluating the effects that existing instruction on responsible conduct of research has on ethical decision making. Academic Medicine, 85(3), 519-526. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181cd1cc5

Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update, 33, 1-4.

Bavdekar, S. B. (2012). Authorship issues. Lung India : Official Organ of Indian Chest Society, 29(1), 76-80. doi:10.4103/0970-2113.92371

Bennett, D. M., & Taylor, D. M. (2003). Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine, 15(3), 263-270. doi:10.1046/j.1442-2026.2003.00432.x

Bhopal, R., Rankin, J., McColl, E., Thomas, L., Kaner, E., Stacy, R., . . . Rodgers, H. (1997). The vexed question of authorship: Views of researchers in a British medical faculty. British Medical Journal, 314(7086), 1009-1012. doi:10.1136/bmj.314.7086.1009

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102

Bohannon, J. (2014, July 14). Updated: Lax reviewing practice prompts 60 retractions at SAGE journal. Retrieved from http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2014/07/updated-lax-reviewing-practice-prompts-60-retractions-sage-journal

Borenstein, J. (2011). Responsible authorship in engineering fields: An overview of current ethical challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(2), 355-364. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9272-4

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2009). The state of h index research. EMBO Reports, 10(1), 2-6. doi:10.1038/embor.2008.233

Brock, M. E., Vert, A., Kligyte, V., Waples, E. P., Sevier, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Mental models: An alternative evaluation of a sensemaking approach to ethics instruction. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 449-472. doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9076-3

Brown, C. E. (2016). Ethical issues when graduate students act as mentors. Ethics & Behavior, 26(8), 688-702. doi:10.1080/10508422.2016.1155151

Carr, P. L., Ash, A. S., Friedman, R. H., Scaramucci, A., Barnett, R. C., Szalacha, L., . . . Moskowitz, M. A. (1998). Relation of family responsibilities and gender to the productivity and career satisfaction of medical faculty. Annals of Internal Medicine, 129(7), 532-538. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-129-7-199810010-00004

Chen, S., & Macfarlane, B. (2016). Academic integrity in China. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 99-105). Singapore: Springer Singapore.

Chien, S.-C. (2017). Taiwanese college students’ perceptions of plagiarism: Cultural and educational considerations. Ethics & Behavior, 27(2), 118-139. doi:10.1080/10508422.2015.1136219

Chou, C., Chan, P. S., & Wu, H. C. (2007). Using a two-tier test to assess students’ understanding and alternative conceptions of cyber copyright laws. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1072-1084. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00695.x

Chou, C., Tsai, C. C., & Chan, P. S. (2007). Developing a web-based two-tier test for internet literacy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 369-372. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00644.x

Chu, H. E., Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2009). A stratified study of students’ understanding of basic optics concepts in different contexts using two‐tier multiple‐choice items. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(3), 253-265. doi:10.1080/02635140903162553

Coakes, S., & Steed, L. (1997). SPSS analysis without anguish. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine). (2009b). Preface. In On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research: Third edition (pp. ix-xii). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine). (2009a). Introduction to the responsible conduct of research. In On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research (pp. 1-3). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hove, United Kingdom: Psychology Press.

Conley, D., & Stadmark, J. (2012). A call to commission more women writers. Nature, 488, 590. doi:10.1038/488590a

Costa, M. M., & Gatz, M. (1992). Determination of authorship credit in published dissertations. Psychological Science, 3(6), 354-357. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00046.x

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.

Craft, J. L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004-2011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 221-259. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1518-9

Cramér, H. (1946). Mathematical methods of statistics. Princeton: NJ: Princeton University Press.

Dalton, D., & Ortegren, M. (2011). Gender dfferences in ethics research: The importance of controlling for the social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(1), 73-93. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0843-8

Davis, M. S. (2003). The role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 10(3), 189-201. doi:10.1080/714906092

de Lambert, K., Ellen, N., & Taylor, L. (2003). Cheating—what is it and why do it: A study in New Zealand tertiary institutions of the perceptions and justifications for academic dishonesty [Electronic Version]. Journal of American Academy of Business, 3(1&2), 98-103. Retrieved from http://www.jaabc.com/jaabcv3n3preview.html

Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (1997). Critical mass and doctoral research: Reflections on the Harris report. Studies in Higher Education, 22(3), 319-331. doi:10.1080/03075079712331380926

DuBois, J. M., & Dueker, J. M. (2009). Teaching and assessing the responsible conduct of research: A delphi consensus panel report. Journal of Research Administration, 40(1), 49-70,45.

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671-688. doi:10.1080/09500690305016

Ecklund, E. H., & Di, D. (2017). A gendered approach to science ethics for US and UK physicists. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 183-201. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9751-8

Ehrich, J., Howard, S. J., Mu, C., & Bokosmaty, S. (2016). A comparison of Chinese and Australian university students’ attitudes towards plagiarism. Studies in Higher Education, 41(2), 231-246. doi:10.1080/03075079.2014.927850

Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature, 515, 480-482. doi:10.1038/515480a

Flanagan, J. L. (2015). A comparison of the views of college of business deans and faculty on undeserved authorships. Journal of Education for Business, 90(5), 241-246. doi:10.1080/08832323.2015.1027163

Flanagin, A., Carey, L. A., Fontanarosa, P. B., Phillips, S. G., Pace, B. P., Lundberg, G. D., & Rennie, D. (1998). Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 222-224. doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.222

Fong, E. A., & Wilhite, A. W. (2017). Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLoS ONE, 12(12), e0187394. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187394

Gasparyan, A. Y. (2011). Get indexed and cited, or perish. European Science Editing, 37(3), 66.

Goldstein, I. L. (1980). Training in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 229-272. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.001305

Greenland, P., & Fontanarosa, P. B. (2012). Ending honorary authorship. Science, 337(6098), 1019. doi:10.1126/science.1224988

Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Haslam, F., & Treagust, D. F. (1987). Diagnosing secondary students’ misconceptions of photosynthesis and respiration in plants using a two-tier multiple choice instrument. Journal of Biological Education, 21(3), 203-211. doi:10.1080/00219266.1987.9654897

Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud—Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine, 373(25), 2393-2395. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1512330

Heine, S. J., & Ruby, M. B. (2010). Cultural psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(2), 254-266. doi:10.1002/wcs.7

Heitman, E., & Litewka, S. (2011). International perspectives on plagiarism and considerations for teaching international trainees. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 29(1), 104-108. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.09.014

Heitman, E., Olsen, C. H., Anestidou, L., & Bulger, R. E. (2007). New graduate students’ baseline knowledge of the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 838-845. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f7956

Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics, 107(2), 455-476. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x

Holman, L., Stuart-Fox, D., & Hauser, C. E. (2018). The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLoS Biology, 16(4), e2004956. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956

Horner, J., & Minifie, F. D. (2011). Research ethics I: Responsible conduct of research (RCR)—Historical and contemporary issues pertaining to human and animal experimentation. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 54(1), S303-S329. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0265)

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, I. (2013). Section 8 PSPB Procedural and operational decisions In P. Morley, J. Germano, B. Hagen, G. Setti, K. Moore, & S. Yurkovich (Eds.), IEEE Publication services and products board operations manual 2014 (pp. 64-126). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Publications.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2017, December). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf

Jagsi, R., Guancial, E. A., Worobey, C. C., Henault, L. E., Chang, Y., Starr, R., . . . Hylek, E. M. (2006). The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature—A 35-year perspective. New England Journal of Medicine, 355(3), 281-287. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa053910

Jamieson, S. (2016). Is it plagiarism or patchwriting? Toward a nuanced definition. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 503-518). Singapore: Springer Singapore.

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, J. (2015). Section I: What is a responsible research activity? In For the sound development of science—The attitude of a conscientious scientist (pp. 3-10). Tokyo, Japan: Maruzen Publishing.

Jordan, A. E. (2001). College student cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 233-247. doi:10.1207/S15327019EB1103_3

Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35(4), 401-415. doi:10.1007/BF02291817

Kalichman, M. (2013). A brief history of RCR education. Accountability in Research, 20(5-6), 380-394. doi:10.1080/08989621.2013.822260

Kalichman, M. (2016). Responsible conduct of research education (what, why, and does it work?). Academic Medicine, 91, e10. doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001442

Kalichman, M., & Plemmons, D. K. (2007). Reported goals for responsible conduct of research courses. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 846-852. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f78bf

Kao, H. L. (2007). A study of aboriginal and urban junior high school students’ alternative conceptions on the definition of respiration. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 517-533. doi:10.1080/09500690601073376

Kennedy, M. S., Barnsteiner, J., & Daly, J. (2014). Honorary and ghost authorship in nursing publications. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 46(6), 416-422. doi:10.1111/jnu.12093

Kligyte, V., Marcy, R. T., Waples, E. P., Sevier, S. T., Godfrey, E. S., Mumford, M. D., & Hougen, D. F. (2008). Application of a sensemaking approach to ethics training in the physical sciences and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(2), 251-278. doi:10.1007/s11948-007-9048-z

Kyvik, S. (2003). Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980-2000. Scientometrics, 58(1), 35-48. doi:10.1023/A:1025475423482

Langlais, P. J., & Bent, B. J. (2014). Individual and organizational predictors of the ethicality of graduate students’ responses to research integrity issues. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(4), 897-921. doi:10.1007/s11948-013-9471-2

Langlais, P. J., & Bent, B. J. (2018). Effects of training and environment on graduate students’ self-rated knowledge and judgments of responsible research behavior. Ethics & Behavior, 28(2), 133-153. doi:10.1080/10508422.2016.1260014

Larivière, V. (2012). On the shoulders of students? The contribution of PhD students to the advancement of knowledge. Scientometrics, 90(2), 463-481. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0495-6

Li, E. Y., Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42(9), 1515-1530. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.012

Liao, C. H. (2011). How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks. Scientometrics, 86(3), 747-761. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0309-2

Lin, C.-H. S., & Wen, L.-Y. M. (2007). Academic dishonesty in higher education—A nationwide study in Taiwan. Higher Education, 54(1), 85-97. doi:10.1007/s10734-006-9047-z

Logan, J. M., Bean, S. B., & Myers, A. E. (2017). Author contributions to ecological publications: What does it mean to be an author in modern ecological research? PLoS ONE, 12(6), e0179956. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179956

Macfarlane, B. (2017). The ethics of multiple authorship: Power, performativity and the gift economy. Studies in Higher Education, 42(7), 1194-1210. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1085009

Macfarlane, B., & Saitoh, Y. (2008). Research ethics in Japanese higher education: Faculty attitudes and cultural mediation. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(3), 181-195. doi:10.1007/s10805-008-9065-9

Maier, U., Wolf, N., & Randler, C. (2016). Effects of a computer-assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different feedback types. Computers & Education, 95, 85-98. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.002

Marco, C. A., & Larkin, G. L. (2000). Research ethics: Ethical issues of data reporting and the quest for authenticity. Academic Emergency Medicine, 7(6), 691-694. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb02049.x

Martin, D. E. (2012). Culture and unethical conduct: Understanding the impact of individualism and collectivism on actual plagiarism. Management Learning, 43(3), 261-273. doi:10.1177/1350507611428119

Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737-738. doi:10.1038/435737a

Marusic, M., Bozikov, J., Katavic, V., Hren, D., Kljakovic-Gaspic, M., & Marusic, A. (2004). Authorship in a small medical journal: A study of contributorship statements by corresponding authors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10(3), 493-502. doi:10.1007/s11948-004-0007-7

McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what can be done about it. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

McCabe, D. L., Feghali, T., & Abdallah, H. (2008). Academic dishonesty in the Middle East: Individual and contextual factors. Research in Higher Education, 49(5), 451-467. doi:10.1007/s11162-008-9092-9

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 522-538. doi: 10.1080/00221546.1993.11778446

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1996). What we know about cheating in college: Longitudinal trends and recent development. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 28(1), 28-33. doi: 10.1080/00091383.1996.10544253

McCook, A. (2017, January 4). Prominent researcher in Taiwan loses another paper for image duplication. Retrieved from https://retractionwatch.com/2017/01/04/prominent-researcher-taiwan-loses-another-paper-image-duplication/

McGee, R., Almquist, J., Keller, J. L., & Jacobsen, S. J. (2008). Teaching and learning responsible research conduct: Influences of prior experiences on acceptance of new ideas. Accountability in Research, 15, 30-62. doi:10.1080/08989620701783758

Mehta, D., & Vavitsas, K. (2017). PhD supervisors: Be better mentors. Nature, 545, 158. doi:10.1038/545158a

Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (MOST). (2017a, September 30). 科技部補助專題研究計畫作業要點 [Key Principles for the subsidy research program of the Ministry of Science and Technology]. An archived document presented in Traditional Chinese.

Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (MOST). (2017b, November 13). Academic ethics guidelines for researchers by the Ministry of Science and Technology. Retrieved from https://www.most.gov.tw/most/attachments/3d81520a-b403-4603-b8ef-b191c38ce80c?

Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213-238. doi:10.1177/000312240406900204

Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., . . . Devenport, L. D. (2008). A sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: Preliminary evidence of training effectiveness. Ethics & Behavior, 18(4), 315-339. doi:10.1080/10508420802487815

Mumford, M. D., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., & Devenport, L. D. (2007). Environmental influences on ethical decision making: Climate and environmental predictors of research integrity. Ethics & Behavior, 17(4), 337-366. doi:10.1080/10508420701519510

Mumford, M. D., Steele, L., & Watts, L. L. (2015). Evaluating ethics education programs: A multilevel approach. Ethics & Behavior, 25(1), 37-60. doi:10.1080/10508422.2014.917417

Murdock, J. L., Stipanovic, N., & Lucas, K. (2013). Fostering connections between graduate students and strengthening professional identity through co-mentoring. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 41(5), 487-503. doi:10.1080/03069885.2012.756972

U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2018, September 7). Number of authors per MEDLINE®/PubMed® citation. Retrieved from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/authors1.html

Nebeker, C. (2014). Smart teaching matters! Applying the research on learning to teaching RCR. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 15(2), 88-92. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.849

Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327-344. doi:10.1080/13645570701401305

O’Brien, J., Baerlocher, M. O., Newton, M., Gautam, T., & Noble, J. (2009). Honorary coauthorship: Does it matter? Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal, 60(5), 231-236. doi:10.1016/j.carj.2009.09.001

Oberlander, S. E., & Spencer, R. J. (2006). Graduate students and the culture of authorship. Ethics & Behavior, 16(3), 217-232. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1603_3

Pan, J.-A., & Chou, C. (2011). Using a two-tier test to assess graduate students’ understanding and alternative conceptions of academic research ethics. Paper presented at the The 6th Annual Conference for Teaching, Learning and Assessment in Higher Education: A Comparison of International Experiences, Nantou, Taiwan. (Presented in Chinese)

Pan, S. J.-A., & Chou, C. (2015). Using a two-tier test to examine Taiwanese graduate students’ misunderstanding of responsible conduct of research. Ethics & Behavior, 25(6), 500-527. doi:10.1080/10508422.2014.987921

Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2014). The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 534-548. doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.841651

Pole, C. J., Sprokkereef, A., Burgess, R. G., & Lakin, E. (1997). Supervision of doctoral students in the natural sciences: Expectations and experiences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(1), 49-63. doi:10.1080/0260293970220104

Rajasekaran, S., Shan, R. L. P., & Finnoff, J. T. (2014). Honorary authorship: Frequency and associated factors in physical medicine and rehabilitation research articles. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 95(3), 418-428. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2013.09.024

Rennie, D., Yank, V., & Emanuel, L. (1997). When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(7), 579-585. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03550070071041

Resnik, D. B. (2015, December 1). What is ethics in research & why is it important? Retrieved from https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm

Resnik, D. B., & Dinse, G. E. (2012). Do US research institutions meet or exceed federal mandates for instruction in responsible conduct of research? A national survey. Academic Medicine, 87(9), 1237-1242. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e318260fe5c

Roach, M., & Sauermann, H. (2017). The declining interest in an academic career. PLoS ONE, 12(9), e0184130. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0184130

SAGE Publishing. (2014). Retraction notice. Journal of Vibration and Control, 20(10), 1601-1604. doi:0.1177/1077546314541924

Salita, J. T. (2010). Authorship practices in Asian cultures. The Write Stuff: The Journal of the European Medical Writers Association, 19(1), 36-38.

Sandler, J. C., & Russell, B. L. (2005). Faculty-student collaborations: Ethics and satisfaction in authorship credit. Ethics & Behavior, 15(1), 65-80. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1501_5

Scott-Lichter, D., & Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors (CSE). (2012). 2.2 Authorship and authorship responsibilities. In CSE’s White paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications, 2012 update (3rd revised ed., pp. p. 21-30). Wheat Ridge, CO: Council of Science Editors.

Şendağ, S., Duran, M., & Fraser, M. R. (2012). Surveying the extent of involvement in online academic dishonesty (e-dishonesty) related practices among university students and the rationale students provide: One university’s experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 849-860. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.004

Sesli, E., & Kara, Y. (2012). Development and application of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic test for high school students’ understanding of cell division and reproduction. Journal of Biological Education, 46(4), 214-225. doi:10.1080/00219266.2012.688849

Slone, R. M. (1996). Coauthors’ contributions to major papers published in the AJR: Frequency of undeserved coauthorship. American Journal of Roentgenology, 167(3), 571-579.

Smart, P. (2015). Is the impact factor the only game in town? Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 97(6), 405-408. doi:10.1308/rcsann.2015.0028

Smith, E., Hunt, M., & Master, Z. (2014). Authorship ethics in global health research partnerships between researchers from low or middle income countries and high income countries. BMC Medical Ethics, 15, 42-49. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-15-42

Springer. (n.d.). Authorship issues – guest, gift or ghost. Retrieved from https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/biomed-central-editor-tutorials/publication-and-research-ethics-and-misconduct/authorship-issues-guest-gift-or-ghost/10501910

Steele, L. M., Johnson, J. F., Watts, L. L., MacDougall, A. E., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., & Lee Williams, T. H. (2016). A comparison of the effects of ethics training on international and US students. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(4), 1217-1244. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9678-5

Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53-74. doi:10.1007/pl00022268

Steneck, N. H. (2013). Global research integrity training. Science, 340(6132), 552-553. doi:10.1126/science.1236373

Strange, K. (2008). Authorship: Why not just toss a coin? American Journal of Physiology - Cell Physiology, 295(3), C567-C575. doi:10.1152/ajpcell.00208.2008

Street, J. M., Rogers, W. A., Israel, M., & Braunack-Mayer, A. J. (2010). Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences. Social Science & Medicine, 70(9), 1458-1465. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.013

Sun, Y.-C. (2009). Using a two-tier test in examining Taiwan graduate students’ perspectives on paraphrasing strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(3), 399-408. doi:10.1007/s12564-009-9035-y

Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273-286. doi:10.2307/2095521

Tamir, P. (1971). An alternative approach to the construction of multiple-choice test items. Journal of Biological Education, 5, 305-307. doi:10.1080/00219266.1971.9653728

Tamir, P. (1989). Some issues related to the use of justifications to multiple-choice answers. Journal of Biological Education, 23(4), 285-292. doi:10.1080/00219266.1989.9655083

Tarkang, E. E., Kweku, M., & Zotor, F. B. (2017). Publication practices and responsible authorship: A review article. Journal of Public Health in Africa, 8(1), 723. doi:10.4081/jphia.2017.723

Taylor & Francis Group. (2017). Co-authorship in the Humanities and Social Sciences: A global view. Retrieved from http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Coauthorship-white-paper.pdf

Treagust, D. F. (1986). Evaluating students’ misconception by means of diagnostic multiple choice items. Research in Science Education, 16(1), 199-207. doi:10.1007/BF02356835

Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159-169. doi:10.1080/0950069880100204

Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2007). The Taiwan National Science Concept Learning Study in an international perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 391-403. doi:10.1080/09500690601072790

Treagust, D. F., Jacobowitz, R., Gallagher, J. L., & Parker, J. (2001). Using assessment as a guide in teaching for understanding: A case study of a middle school science class learning about sound. Science Education, 85(2), 137-157. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200103)85:2<137::AID-SCE30>3.0.CO;2-B

Tsai, C. C., & Chou, C. (2002). Diagnosing students’ alternative conceptions in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(2), 157-165. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.00223.x

U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2009, November 24). Update on the requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research (NIH Notice No. NOT-OD-10-019). Retrieved from https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-10-019.html

Wager, E., Fiack, S., Graf, C., Robinson, A., & Rowlands, I. (2009). Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: Results of an international survey. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(6), 348-353. doi:10.1136/jme.2008.028324

Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2012). Responsible research publication: International standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. In T. Mayer & N. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment (pp. 309-316). Singapore: Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing.

Wang, M. N. M., Wu, K. C., & Huang, T. C. I. (2007). A study on the factors affecting biological concept learning of junior high school students. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 453-464. doi:10.1080/09500690601073152

Wennerås, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387, 341. doi:10.1038/387341a0

West, J. D., Jacquet, J., King, M. M., Correll, S. J., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2013). The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e66212. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066212

Yang, S. C. (2012a). Attitudes and behaviors related to academic dishonesty: A survey of Taiwanese graduate students. Ethics & Behavior, 22(3), 218-237. doi:10.1080/10508422.2012.672904

Yang, S. C. (2012b). Ethical academic judgments and behaviors: Applying a multidimensional ethics scale to measure the ethical academic behavior of graduate students. Ethics & Behavior, 22(4), 281-296. doi:10.1080/10508422.2012.672907

Yang, T.-C., Chen, S. Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2015). The influences of a two-tier test strategy on student learning: A lag sequential analysis approach. Computers & Education, 82, 366-377. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.021

Yang, T.-C., Fu, H.-T., Hwang, G.-J., & Yang, S. J. H. (2017). Development of an interactive mathematics learning system based on a two-tier test diagnostic and guiding strategy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 62-80. doi:10.14742/ajet.2154

Yang, T.-C., Hwang, G.-J., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G.-H. (2015). A two-tier test-based approach to improving students' computer-programming skills in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 198-210.

Yeo, S. (2007). First-year science and engineering students’ understanding of plagiarism. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(2), 199-216. doi:10.1080/07294360701310813

Yukawa, Y., Kitanaka, C., & Yokoyama, M. (2014). Authorship practices in multi-authored papers in the natural sciences at Japanese universities. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 23(1), 80-91. doi:10.1111/ijjs.12016
 
 
 
 
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：488（臺灣：485，外國：3） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1780212 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67580962
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