加拿大推动负责任研究行为的缘起、内容与方法——兼论对中国负责任研究行为规范的启示

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (7)

Download: PDF (7947 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract In recent years,the international community has significantly increased its awareness of responsibility in scientific research.Canada has set a global example in promoting responsible research conduct through innovative policy design and a systematic governance framework.Tri-Agency Framework:Responsible Conduct of Research centers on a“wide-system”governance approach that promotes a culture of integrity,prevents potential risks,and sanctions misconduct.This framework clearly delineates the responsibilities of researchers,research institutions,and federal funding agencies,establishing a closed-loop governance system that spans from cultural development to risk prevention and misconduct handling.By strengthening accountability,fostering an“institution-wide”culture of integrity,and enhancing transparent accountability mechanisms,Canada has created a responsible research environment with integrity at its core.These practices offer important insights for promoting responsible research conduct in China,including clarifying responsibility allocation,emphasizing preventive education,and improving accountability mechanisms,thereby fostering sustainable development in scientific research.

Key words： Canada Responsible conduct of research Research integrity Science and technology governance

Received: 27 September 2024

PACS:

G311

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Zhang Ling
	Jiang Jiaqiong

Cite this article:

Zhang Ling,Jiang Jiaqiong. The Origins,Content and Methods of Canada's Promotion of Responsible Conduct of Research: Implications for the Regulation of Responsible Research Conduct in China[J]. , 2025, 6(7): 159-168.

URL:

http://www.zgkjlt.org.cn/EN/ OR http://www.zgkjlt.org.cn/EN/Y2025/V6/I7/159

[1]科技部.科技部监督司发布《负责任研究行为规范指引(2023)》[A/OL].(2023-12-21)[2024-06-30].https://www.most.gov.cn/kjbgz/202312/t20231221_189240.html.
[2]European Network of Research Integrity Offices.Accelerating responsible conduct of research in a multidisciplinary research community[EB/OL].(2023-04-09)[2024-07-01].https://www.enrio-ripe.eu/2023/09/04/research_ethics_working_group/#more-208.
[3]The Committee on the state of science & technology in Canada.The state of science & technology in Canada.[EB/OL].(2021-03-30)[2024-06-30].https://cca-reports.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/The-State-of-Science-Technology-in-Canada.pdf.
[4]KING D A.The scientific impact of nations[J].Nature,2004,430(6997):311-316.
[5]Canadian Institutes of Health Research.Responsible Conduct of Research[EB/OL].(2024-02-13)[2024-07-02].https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/40512.html.
[6]Canadian Institutes of Health Research.Tri-Agency Framework:Responsible Conduct of Research(2016)[EB/OL].(2021-12-17)[2024-07-02].https://rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/framework-cadre.html#a1.
[7]Canadian Institutes of Health Research.Tri-Agency Framework:Responsible Conduct of Research(2021)[EB/OL].(2021-12-17)[2024-06-30].https://rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/framework-cadre-2021.html.
[8]Government of Canada.Agreement on the Administration of Agency Grants and Awards by Research Institutions[A/OL].(2020-09-17)[2024-06-30].https://science.gc.ca/site/science/en/interagency-research-funding/policies-and-guidelines/institutional-agreement.
[9]HAL Consultants.The State of Research Integrity and Misconduct Policies in Canada[EB/OL].(2009-10-30)[2025-03-01].https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/NSERC-CRSNG/HAL_Report_e.pdf.
[10]TAI J,AJJAWI R,BEARMAN M.Assessment for inclusion:Rethinking contemporary strategies in assessment design[J].Higher Education Research ＆ Development,2023,42(2):483-497.
[11]ZIMMERMAN S V,WALLACE K.Promoting responsible conduct of research:A Canadian perspective[J].Accountability in Research,2013,20(5/6):395-402.
[12]World Scientific Publishing Co.Pte Ltd.Responsible Conduct of Research:A Canadian Approach[EB/OL].(2021-03-30)[2024-06-30].https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/suppl/10.1142/9369/suppl_file/9369_chap01.pdf.
[13]张迪,张力伟.科技伦理治理体系的责任规范研究[J].科学学研究,2025,43(3):523-529.
[14]李丹,李胜会.负责任研究与创新政策的制度轮廓与规制机理[J].研究与发展管理,2025,37(2):97-110.
[15]王今,邹纯龙,马海群.面向负责任研究的科研数据信用风险敏捷治理体系研究[J].中国科技论坛,2024(1):7-15.
[16]王名扬,姚金菊,王崇恩.美国大学学术不端治理机制研究:以八所常春藤大学为例[J].中国人民大学教育学刊,2024(5):69-82,182.
[17]王硕,李正风.科技伦理教育体系的系统发展观:基于“六边形教育模型”的探索[J].科学学研究,2023,41(11):1921-1927.
[18]周力虹,冯薇,刘芳.全球视野下的科研诚信教育:实践进展、热点问题与未来展望:iConference2023科研诚信教育专题研讨会综述[J].图书与情报,2023(3):112-120.
[19]高天晓,詹琰.资助机构负责任研究的价值导向对科研不端行为的影响研究[J].中国科学基金,2024,38(2):335-342.
[20]周湘林.高等学校科研诚信问责制机理与构建:基于案例的探索性研究[J].教育研究,2021,42(6):126-137.
[21]郭创拓.科研宽容制度改革法治化的困境及其破解之道[J].法学论坛,2020,35(6):67-74.
[22]赵迎辉.论科研诚信管理法治的建构[J].法学论坛,2024,39(6):153-160.
[23]王阳.中国惩治问题研究行为的困境与出路:基于美国、欧盟、澳大利亚的新近认知与规制转变[J].自然辩证法通讯,2023,45(10):20-28.