The various national European legal systems offer a broad range of responses to the question of what can be regarded as wrongful behaviour or fault. The present work systematically examines these two important prerequisites for tortious liability under the combined heading of ‘misconduct’. Unlike current textbooks, national casebooks and monographs, it builds on the experiences gathered in the national legal systems over the past decades and thereby fills a major gap which still exists today. It thus does what the previous volumes in the ‘Digest of European Tort Law’ series did for other key elements of tort law, namely natural causation and damage. Once again, the publication contains a selection of the most important cases from 28 states across Europe as well as cases handed down by European Union courts; it also highlights cases from earlier periods of legal history. For each case, the facts and the relevant court decision are presented and these are then accompanied by an analytical commentary. In addition, the editors provide comparative analyses of the cases reported and a special report is dedicated to how key decisions would be resolved under model European rules on tort law. The editors believe that the material gathered here may provide guidance for an organic convergence of the national legal systems in Europe. It constitutes the basis of an acquis commun that is infinitely richer (though also much more complex) than the rather bland and abstract concepts contained in national codifications, European legislation and modern model rules.

The integrity of knowledge that emerges from research is based on individual and collective adherence to core values of objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. Integrity in science means that the organizations in which research is conducted encourage those involved to exemplify these values in every step of the research process. Understanding the dynamics that support â€" or distort â€" practices that uphold the integrity of research by all participants ensures that the research enterprise advances knowledge. The 1992 report Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process evaluated issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. It provided a valuable service in describing and analyzing a very complicated set of issues, and has served as a crucial basis for thinking about research integrity for more than two decades. However, as experience has accumulated with various forms of research misconduct, detrimental research practices, and other forms of misconduct, as subsequent empirical research has revealed more about the nature of scientific misconduct, and because technological and social changes have altered the environment in which science is conducted, it is clear that the framework established more than two decades ago needs to be updated. Responsible Science served as a valuable benchmark to set the context for this most recent analysis and to help guide the committee's thought process. Fostering Integrity in Research identifies best practices in research and recommends practical options for discouraging and addressing research misconduct and detrimental research practices.

With an emerging ius commune in the field of tort law, the extensive range of experiences derived from national court practice on the basis of prior laws will in certain respects be of comparatively less importance. A major lacuna is thus apparent: While publications of court decisions and databases exist, none provide access to a comparative selection of recurring issues in the various European legal systems. Along the lines of the previous Digest project on Causation, this study covers another key element of tort law damage. The publication contains a systematic selection of cases from 27 countries across Europe in addition to ECJ case-law, with each case benefiting from an analysis and commentary from a national and, where appropriate, a comparative perspective. Further, the impact of these rulings on a future European law of torts is highlighted. Finally, the publication also looks into how key cases would be resolved under unified European tort law drafts. The object of the study is thus to bridge domestic case-law with the new body of uniform tort law thus facilitating the continuity of legal development in Europe."

An analysis of current biomedical research misconduct policy that proposes a new approach emphasizing the context of misconduct and improved oversight. Federal regulations that govern research misconduct in biomedicine have not been able to prevent an ongoing series of high-profile cases of fabricating, falsifying, or plagiarizing scientific research. In this book, Barbara Redman looks critically at current research misconduct policy and proposes a new approach that emphasizes institutional context and improved oversight. Current policy attempts to control risk at the individual level. But Redman argues that a fair and effective policy must reflect the context in which the behavior in question is embedded. As journalists who covered many research misconduct cases observed, the roots of fraud “lie in the barrel, not in the bad apples that occasionally roll into view.” Drawing on literature in related fields—including moral psychology, the policy sciences, the organizational sciences, and law—as well as analyses of misconduct cases, Redman considers research misconduct from various perspectives. She also examines in detail a series of clinical research cases in which repeated misconduct went undetected and finds laxity of oversight, little attention to harm done, and inadequate correction of the scientific record. Study questions enhance the book's value for graduate and professional courses in research ethics. Redman argues that the goals of any research misconduct policy should be to protect scientific capital (knowledge, scientists, institutions, norms of science), support fair competition, contain harms to end users and to the public trust, and enable science to meet its societal obligations.

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.

This book discusses the issue of academic misconduct and publication ethics in general and plagiarism in particular, with a focus on case studies in various universities around the world (notably in Japan, Singapore, Australia, USA, and Canada). We are especially interested in students’ and teachers’ perception of academic misconduct and their definition and understanding of plagiarism. Most chapters discuss undergraduates’ understanding of academic dishonesty and students’ experiences using plagiarism softwares. The book also analyzes teachers’ perception of cheating and how they respond to it. Writing is perceived by all of the teachers to be the most important form of assessment that required preventative measures in order to reduce the occurrence of academic dishonesty among students. Each chapter recommends strategies to fight plagiarism, such as establishing guidelines and regulations concerning academic integrity, awareness of the scale of the issue (scandals at all levels in most countries, even including famous scholars, administrators, and elected officials), assessing the damage done to academic reputation and credibility, developing trust and credibility on social media (especially with the recent disturbing growth of fake news and data), minimizing the proliferation of dishonest accreditation, of identity theft, of fake peer-reviews, and fighting the growing number of fake papers, with or without the use of computer-generated academic works.