科研不端行为界定模式的国际比较与借鉴  

The international comparison and reference of the definition mode of scientific misconduct

作　　者：常宏建[1] 

机构地区：[1]山东财经大学工商管理学院,济南250014

出　　处：《中国科学基金》2017年第2期200-204,共5页Bulletin of National Natural Science Foundation of China

基　　金：国家自然科学基金项目"国家自然科学基金评审专家行为规范研究"(项目号S1221002)的资助

摘　　要：明确、合理地界定科研不端行为,能够厘清政府介入科研活动的范围,为科技工作者提供清晰的科研不端行为界限。当前国际上对科研不端行为的界定有狭义的"FFP"(即:伪造、篡改、剽窃)模式、基于"FFP"的列举扩展模式。我国对科研不端行为界定范围普遍过于宽泛,概念表述不统一,缺乏对不端行为类型术语的解释和判定规则,导致许多规章缺乏实践层面的可操作性。本文比较了对科研不端行为界定的模式,归纳了我国目前存在的问题,有针对性地提出从国家层面统一科研不端行为的定义、具体列举不端行为类型、明确不端行为术语解释和判定规则等建议,以期为制定和完善相关政策提供借鉴。If define scientific misconduct clearly and reasonably, we could clarify the government intervention scope in scientific research activities, and provide a clear line of scientific misconduct with scientist. At present, there are three models of the scientific misconduct definition, including ＂FFP＂ model, the expansion model, the list and analogy model. The third model is generally adopted in China. This paper compared the three models for definition of scientific misconduct, summed up the problems in China, and put forward the suggestions on improving the definition of scientific misconduct.

关 键 词：科研不端行为 界定 制度比较 

分 类 号：G311[文化科学]