Intellectual Freedom and Editorial Responsibilities Within the Context of Controversial Research

Abstract

The primary purpose of this article is to explore the limits that an agent, such as the government or the American Psychological Association, may place on one's right to pursue a program of research or to share the findings of a research project. The primary argument that evolves here is that researchers' rights to pursue an interesting hypothesis, and their freedom of expression, are conditional. The author examines the potential pragmatic and epistemological barriers to a program of research and the responsibilities that researchers bear to address epistemological and nonepistemological matters while reviewing the implications of their work.

Against the use and publication of contemporary unethical research: the case of Chinese transplant research

“…There are at least four, non-exclusive, purposes of academic publishing (and its processes of editorial and peer review): [43][44][45][46][47] (1) to provide a complete record of scientific activity; (2) to facilitate the dissemination of novel ideas; (3) to ensure that only scientifically valid information is disseminated; and. (4) to maintain the integrity of science, protect research participants and reward those who act in ethical ways.…”