<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><rec-number>543</rec-number><ref-type>Journal Article</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Koppelman-White, Elysa</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Research Misconduct and The Scientific process: Continuing Quality Improvement</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Accountability in Research: Policies &amp; Quality Assurance</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&amp;</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Assessment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">behavior</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BEHAVIORAL</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">care</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ethics</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Human</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">in</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Integrity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">interaction</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">method</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Methodology</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Misconduct</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">of</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">research</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">sciences</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Scientific</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">SOCIAL</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">standard</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Study</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">teaching</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">torts</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">VALUES</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">–</style></keyword></keywords><taxonomies><taxonomy><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Science </style></taxonomy><taxonomy><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pedagogical Materials</style></taxonomy><taxonomy><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">HUMAN behavior VALUES ETHICS – Study & teaching BEHAVIORAL assessment SOCIAL interaction SOCIAL sciences – Methodology ethics education integrity in research research misconduct scientific method standard of care torts</style></taxonomy></taxonomies><pubtype><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal Article</style></pubtype><audience-level><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">grad</style></audience-level><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">13</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">225-246</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The author argues that research misconduct can be regulated through two ways, creating and enforcing rules and through ethics education.  Because of the nature of science, rules must be limited in scope as to the behaviors it covers and that there must be an intent to perform misconduct present. Therefore, ethics education must step in where the rules fall short.  The author argues that these gaps, which exist because of the very nature of science, can be filled through an educational program that focuses heavily on theory and reach a wide audience. Ideally, ethics education should help produce a discipline-specific standard of care that can evolve as new ethics issues arise.  </style></abstract><doi><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10.1080/08989620600848611 </style></doi><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">KOPPELMAN-WHITE, ELYSA 1; Email Address: koppelma@oakland.edu; Affiliations: 1: Department of Philosophy, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA; Issue Info: Jul2006, Vol. 13 Issue 3, p225; Subject Term: HUMAN behavior; Subject Term: VALUES; Subject Term: ETHICS – Study &amp; teaching; Subject Term: BEHAVIORAL assessment; Subject Term: SOCIAL interaction; Subject Term: SOCIAL sciences – Methodology; Author-Supplied Keyword: ethics education; Author-Supplied Keyword: integrity in research; Author-Supplied Keyword: research misconduct; Author-Supplied Keyword: scientific method; Author-Supplied Keyword: standard of care; Author-Supplied Keyword: torts; Number of Pages: 22p; Document Type: Article</style></notes></record></records></xml>