In Defense of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Response to Radder

Jeroen de Ridder; Lex Bouter; Tamarinde Haven; Rik Peels; Joeri Tijdink; Maurice P. Zeegers

doi:10.1080/08989621.2023.2167599

In Defense of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Response to Radder

Jeroen de Ridder^*, Lex Bouter, Tamarinde Haven, Rik Peels, Joeri Tijdink, Maurice P. Zeegers

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Comment / Letter to the editor › Academic

82 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

We assess Radder’s criticisms of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and show that they either miss their mark or depend on controversial background assumptions about the purpose of the Code. Although Radder raises important questions about the broader roles and purposes of research in society, his conclusion that the Code should be revised in the ways he proposes is unjustified.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	276-283
Number of pages	8
Journal	Accountability in Research
Volume	30
Issue number	5
Early online date	9 Feb 2023
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2167599
Publication status	Published - 4 Jul 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Thanks to Mohammad Hosseini and René van Woudenberg for discussion about the topics of this paper. JdR’s, LB’s, RP’s and JT’s work on this paper was made possible through the support of a grant from Templeton World Charity Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Templeton World Charity Foundation.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Funding

Thanks to Mohammad Hosseini and René van Woudenberg for discussion about the topics of this paper. JdR’s, LB’s, RP’s and JT’s work on this paper was made possible through the support of a grant from Templeton World Charity Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Templeton World Charity Foundation. The work was supported by the Templeton World Charity Foundation [TWCF#0436]. Thanks to Mohammad Hosseini and René van Woudenberg for discussion about the topics of this paper. JdR’s, LB’s, RP’s and JT’s work on this paper was made possible through the support of a grant from Templeton World Charity Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Templeton World Charity Foundation.

Funders	Funder number
Templeton World Charity Foundation	0436

Keywords

Mertonian norms
Netherlands code of conduct for research integrity
patenting
Research Integrity
Responsible research and innovation

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1080/08989621.2023.2167599

In Defense of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity Response to RadderFinal published version, 554 KBLicence: Article 25fa Dutch Copyright Act

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{abb83902138a4073a85240a5779e474c,

title = "In Defense of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Response to Radder",

abstract = "We assess Radder{\textquoteright}s criticisms of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and show that they either miss their mark or depend on controversial background assumptions about the purpose of the Code. Although Radder raises important questions about the broader roles and purposes of research in society, his conclusion that the Code should be revised in the ways he proposes is unjustified.",

keywords = "Mertonian norms, Netherlands code of conduct for research integrity, patenting, Research Integrity, Responsible research and innovation",

author = "{de Ridder}, Jeroen and Lex Bouter and Tamarinde Haven and Rik Peels and Joeri Tijdink and Zeegers, {Maurice P.}",

note = "Funding Information: Thanks to Mohammad Hosseini and Ren{\'e} van Woudenberg for discussion about the topics of this paper. JdR{\textquoteright}s, LB{\textquoteright}s, RP{\textquoteright}s and JT{\textquoteright}s work on this paper was made possible through the support of a grant from Templeton World Charity Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Templeton World Charity Foundation. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.",

year = "2023",

month = jul,

day = "4",

doi = "10.1080/08989621.2023.2167599",

language = "English",

volume = "30",

pages = "276--283",

journal = "Accountability in Research",

issn = "0898-9621",

publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In Defense of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Response to Radder

AU - de Ridder, Jeroen

AU - Bouter, Lex

AU - Haven, Tamarinde

AU - Peels, Rik

AU - Tijdink, Joeri

AU - Zeegers, Maurice P.

N1 - Funding Information: Thanks to Mohammad Hosseini and René van Woudenberg for discussion about the topics of this paper. JdR’s, LB’s, RP’s and JT’s work on this paper was made possible through the support of a grant from Templeton World Charity Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Templeton World Charity Foundation. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

PY - 2023/7/4

Y1 - 2023/7/4

N2 - We assess Radder’s criticisms of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and show that they either miss their mark or depend on controversial background assumptions about the purpose of the Code. Although Radder raises important questions about the broader roles and purposes of research in society, his conclusion that the Code should be revised in the ways he proposes is unjustified.

AB - We assess Radder’s criticisms of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and show that they either miss their mark or depend on controversial background assumptions about the purpose of the Code. Although Radder raises important questions about the broader roles and purposes of research in society, his conclusion that the Code should be revised in the ways he proposes is unjustified.

KW - Mertonian norms

KW - Netherlands code of conduct for research integrity

KW - patenting

KW - Research Integrity

KW - Responsible research and innovation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85147757014&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85147757014&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/08989621.2023.2167599

DO - 10.1080/08989621.2023.2167599

M3 - Comment / Letter to the editor

C2 - 36708135

SN - 0898-9621

VL - 30

SP - 276

EP - 283

JO - Accountability in Research

JF - Accountability in Research

IS - 5

ER -

In Defense of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Response to Radder

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this