Version 1
: Received: 11 January 2019 / Approved: 14 January 2019 / Online: 14 January 2019 (09:56:48 CET)
How to cite:
Carroll, L.S.L. The Violation Imperative Part II: A Philosophical Critique of the Public Health Service’s Definition of Falsification as Research Misconduct. Preprints2019, 2019010129. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201901.0129.v1
Carroll, L.S.L. The Violation Imperative Part II: A Philosophical Critique of the Public Health Service’s Definition of Falsification as Research Misconduct. Preprints 2019, 2019010129. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201901.0129.v1
Carroll, L.S.L. The Violation Imperative Part II: A Philosophical Critique of the Public Health Service’s Definition of Falsification as Research Misconduct. Preprints2019, 2019010129. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201901.0129.v1
APA Style
Carroll, L.S.L. (2019). The Violation Imperative Part II: A Philosophical Critique of the Public Health Service’s Definition of Falsification as Research Misconduct. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201901.0129.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Carroll, L.S.L. 2019 "The Violation Imperative Part II: A Philosophical Critique of the Public Health Service’s Definition of Falsification as Research Misconduct" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201901.0129.v1
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to critique the definition of falsification as research misconduct according to the Public Health Service (PHS) in order to better understand what it entails. In support of this purpose, the approach decided upon for analysis was philosophical including framing the issue borrowing from both mereological and epistemological perspectives. Through the consideration given to parthood relations of mereology, we gained insight from a cognitive imperfection standpoint about similarities that exist between the epistemic constraints on knowledge and the nature of violations concerning research misconduct. Findings from the examination of a case study include the significance of accuracy in representation in falsification as misconduct and the core dimensions comprising an instance of falsification, which are Deliberateness, Alteration, and Inclusion. Given that either behavior or actions must occur that violate these three aspects in order to qualify as an instance of misconduct under falsification, the author proposes that, at a minimum, any revisions made to the definition of falsification stipulate what he refers to as the Violation Imperative.
Keywords
the violation imperative; responsible conduct of research (RCR); research misconduct; science; definition of falsification; philosophy; ethics
Subject
Arts and Humanities, Philosophy
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
