Skip to main content
Log in

Research Misconduct: Why are definitions so elusive?

  • Letter
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Guston, D.H. (1999) Changing Explanatory Frameworks in the U.S. Government’s Attempt to Define Scientific Misconduct, Science and Engineering Ethics 5: 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mitroff, I.I. (1974) Subjective Side of Science: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Psychology of the Apollo Moon Scientists, Elsevier, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gould, S.J. (1981) Mismeasure of Man, Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dale, M.L. (1998) Commentary on “Changing Explanatory Frameworks in the U.S. Government’s Attempt to Define Scientific Misconduct”, Science and Engineering Ethics 5: 158–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This letter is a response to David Guston’s paper “Changing Explanatory Frameworks in the U.S. Government’s Attempt to Define Scientific Misconduct” which appeared in a special issue of Science and Engineering Ethics on Scientific Misconduct (Vol. 5, No. 2, 1999).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hauptman, R. Research Misconduct: Why are definitions so elusive?. SCI ENG ETHICS 5, 443–444 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-999-0044-3

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-999-0044-3

Keywords

Navigation