Accountability

Accountability
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    认识到伦理和哲学审议对环境流行病学的重要性,1996年,建立了该行业的道德准则。1999年,国际环境流行病学学会通过了这些准则。2012年和2023年对准则进行了修订,以确保继续与该领域面临的主要问题相关。包括专业行为的规范标准,该准则分为四个小节:(1)对参与研究的个人和社区的义务;(2)对社会的义务;(3)有关资助者/赞助者和雇主的义务;(4)对同事的义务。通过2023年《道德准则》的修订,国际环境流行病学学会寻求确保从事研究和公共卫生实践的环境流行病学家的道德行为达到最高的透明度和问责制标准。
    Recognition of the importance to environmental epidemiology of ethical and philosophical deliberation led, in 1996, to the establishment of Ethics Guidelines for the profession. In 1999, these guidelines were adopted by the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology. The guidelines were revised in 2012 and again in 2023 to ensure continued relevance to the major issues facing the field. Comprising normative standards of professional conduct, the guidelines are structured into four subsections: (1) obligations to individuals and communities who participate in research; (2) obligations to society; (3) obligations regarding funders/sponsors and employers; and (4) obligations to colleagues. Through the 2023 revision of the Ethics Guidelines, the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology seeks to ensure the highest possible standards of transparency and accountability for the ethical conduct of environmental epidemiologists engaged in research and public health practice.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    Curzer(Curzer,H.J.2021年。作者和正义:信用和责任,研究28:1-22中的问责制)从各种哲学角度针对ICMJE作者标准构建了令人信服的重要论据。这里,我们对Curzer的观点提出了不同的意见,主要是从生物医学科学的角度(ICMJE作者标准最初是针对该科学的)。我们既不能识别也不同意Curzer关于当代生物医学科学出版物中作家和研究人员之间“脱节”的观点,或者在智力和非智力贡献者应该得到平等认可的概念中看到明确的价值。此外,我们注意到结果主义关于效用的论点,罗尔斯正义,以及康德道义论都不同意ICMJE标准。简而言之,虽然我们发现Curzer的论点是参与者或以人为中心的,这些都不符合哲学或科学实践。我们假设ICMJE作者标准的关键概念,在这种情况下,作者身份需要知识信用与责任的结合,应该仍然是科学研究实践的基石。
    Curzer (Curzer 2021. Authorship and justice: Credit and responsibility, Accountability in Research 28:1-22) has constructed cogent and important arguments against the ICMJE authorship criteria from various philosophical perspectives. Here, we provide differing opinions to Curzer\'s points, primarily from the perspective of biomedical sciences (for which the ICMJE authorship criteria are originally meant for). We could neither identify nor concur with Curzer\'s opinion of a \"disconnect\" between writer and researcher in contemporary biomedical science publications, or see definitive value in the notion that intellectual and non-intellectual contributors should be equally credited. Furthermore, we note that consequentialist argument for utility, Rawlsian justice, as well as Kantian deontology are all not in disagreement with the ICMJE criteria. In brief, while we find Curzer\'s arguments to be participant or people-centric, these are not particularly in line with either the philosophy or the practice of science. We posit that the key concept underlying the ICMJE authorship criteria, in which authorship entails a coupling of intellectual credit to accountability, should remain a cornerstone in the practice of scientific research.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    本文综合了《运动与运动研究季刊》最近发表的关于体育教师效能的系列手稿,并强调了共识和分歧。尽管人们对发展身体活跃的生活方式的使命达成了很多共识,关于如何到达那里有很多分歧,这使得衡量有效性的任务变得困难。当前衡量教师有效性的教育改革努力使各级体育专业人员必须参与这一过程。
    This article synthesizes the series of manuscripts on teacher effectiveness in physical education recently published by the Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport and highlights both the consensus and points of disagreement. Although there is much agreement as to the mission to develop a physically active lifestyle, there is a great deal of disagreement on how to get there, which makes the task of measuring effectiveness difficult. The current reform effort in education to measure teacher effectiveness makes it essential that professionals in physical education at all levels be participants in this process.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

公众号