Scientific Misconduct, Plagiarism, and Institutional Control of Misconduct
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), 2015, Pages 313-317
Ragnvald Kalleberg
Abstract:Scientific misconduct refers to fraud, to serious violations of the internal research ethical norms related to the truth-commitment of science. The three most common examples used to illustrate such misconduct, are fabrication of fictitious data, falsification of data and methods, and plagiarism. The next section is focused on the historical emergence of modern research ethics in early modernity, as an integrated element in the scientific revolution. Robert Merton labeled this system of values and norms “the ethos of science.” As a set of institutional imperatives it has perhaps been the most efficient system of internal self-control invented in the modern world. The last section deals with developments in research ethics after World War II. Before World War II institutional control of misconduct was informal, based on the self-correcting power of individuals and groups. Today the traditional system of self-regulation is more explicitly cultivated and supervised, complemented with procedures and committees on higher levels, such as at the level of organizations. The task of new procedures and institutions is to comple guard, control, stimulate and further develop traditional self-regulation, not to replace it.
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH ALLEGATIONS OF ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT AT YALE UNIVERSITY
The Management of Scientific Integrity Within Academic Medical Centers, 2015, Pages 195-203
Introduction:The Scholar works within an environment that has been developed for conducting, supporting, and evaluating scholarly research in the single-minded pursuit of truth. Academic fraud… is more than error; it may take the form of falsification or fabrication of data, plagiarism, or grossly negligent data collection or analysis. It is hardly possible to exaggerate the damage that can result from such a breach of the academic commitment to truth. Academic fraud… not only shatters individual careers, but besmirches the entire cause of objective research, undermines the credibility of scholarship and rends the fragile tissues of confidence between scholar and scholar, teacher and student, the university and the public… All forms of academic fraud must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. All scholars have an obligation to disclose what they believe, in good faith, to be wellfounded suspicions of academic fraud. Allegations of fraud must, of course, be made with great caution; yet those who come forward with such allegations must understand that the University respects the honest exercise of their judgment. At the same time, the rights of those whose scholarship or research is questioned must also be scrupulously protected, all in accord with a process that responds to such allegations with the utmost care, diligence, sensitivity, and respect for the rights of all concerned.
Big Five personality and academic dishonesty: A meta-analytic review
Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 72, January 2015, Pages 59-67
Tamara L. Giluk, Bennett E. Postlethwaite
Abstract:Academic dishonesty is widespread within secondary and higher education. It can include unethical academic behaviors such as cheating, plagiarism, or unauthorized help. Researchers have investigated a number of individual and contextual factors in an effort to understand the phenomenon. In the last decade, there has been increasing interest in the role personality plays in explaining unethical academic behaviors. We used meta-analysis to estimate the relationship between each of the Big Five personality factors and academic dishonesty. Previous reviews have highlighted the role of neuroticism and extraversion as potential predictors of cheating behavior. However, our results indicate that conscientiousness and agreeableness are the strongest Big Five predictors, with both factors negatively related to academic dishonesty. We discuss the implications of our findings for both research and practice.
Scientific Responsibility and Misconduct
Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (Second Edition), 2012, Pages 41-48
A. Briggle
Abstract:This article first examines the normative structure of science and its implications for the responsibilities of scientists. It then discusses the breakdown of these norms in terms of scientific misconduct, noting important historical cases, comparing various definitions of misconduct, and discussing explanations for misconduct. The article next considers several responses to misconduct and persistent and emerging questions. The concluding section broaches some wider connotations of scientific responsibility by considering the principle that scientists should bear some responsibility for the consequences of their research and for engaging public policies and debates pertaining to science.
Perioperative Mischief: The Price of Academic Misconduct
The American Journal of Medicine, Volume 125, Issue 10, October 2012, Pages 953-955
Vineet Chopra, Kim A. Eagle
Abstract:Recent allegations of fraud committed by one of the most prolific researchers in perioperative medicine, Don Poldermans, have left many clinicians in a state of disbelief. With over 500 peer-reviewed publications, Poldermans heavily influenced the clinical practice of perioperative beta-blockers and statins in noncardiac surgery, shaping guidelines and national policies on the use of these treatments. The effects of fraud in perioperative medicine are particularly caustic owing to a profound domino effect. Many investigators devoted their academic careers to following the footsteps of investigators such as Poldermans. Similarly, funding agencies supported this line of enquiry, incurring significant cost and expense. Most importantly, hundreds of patients were exposed to treatments that may have been harmful in an effort to advance this research agenda. How should perioperative clinicians utilize beta blockade now that a considerable portion of the literature is enshrouded in uncertainty? In this brief review, we reiterate and emphasize basic principles about the indications and administration of perioperative beta blockade. Because research misconduct in perioperative medicine can be so damaging, we present strategies to prevent such events in the future. Without such reform, fraud in research may very well continue. The price for such misconduct is simply too great to pay.
Perceptions of acceptable conducts by university students
Journal of Optometry, Volume 9, Issue 3, July–September 2016, Pages 166-174
Dora Nazaré Marques, António Filipe Macedo
Abstract:ObjectiveTo determine perceptions of acceptable conducts amongst under and postgraduate optometry students and to compare them with students from other disciplines.
MethodsStudents (under/postgraduate) of optometry (n = 156) and other courses (n = 54) from University of Minho participated in a voluntary online questionnaire about perception of conducts, classifying as acceptable or unacceptable 15 academic or professional scenarios.
Results210 questionnaires were analyzed. Differences in perceptions were found between optometry under and postgraduates in scenario 5, Chi-square(2,156) = 4.3, p = 0.038, and scenario 7, Chi-square(2,156) = 7.0, p = 0.008 (both with cheating more acceptable for postgrads). Differences between under and postgraduates from other courses were found in scenario 9 (taking supplies from classroom more acceptable for undergrads), Chi-square(1,54) = 5.0, p = 0.025, and scenario 14 (forging a signature more acceptable for postgrads), Chi-square(1,54) = 3.9, p = 0.046. Differences between optometry and other courses undergraduates were observed in scenario 2 (plagiarism more acceptable for optometry undergrads), Chi-square(1,154) = 8.3, p = 0.004 and scenario 9 (taking supplies from classroom more acceptable for other undergrads), chi-square(1,54) = 7.8, p = 0.005. Differences between optometry and other courses postgraduates were observed in scenario 7, Chi-square(1,56) = 5.8, p = 0.016, scenario 10 (both with cheating more acceptable for optometry postgrads), chi-square(1,54) = 8.1, p = 0.004 and scenario 14 (forging a signature more acceptable for other postgrads), Chi-square(1,54) = 6.1, p = 0.026.
ConclusionAcademic misconducts were mainly considered more acceptable than professional misconducts. Our results show that perceptions of acceptable conducts amongst optometry students are not very different from other students, and, against our initial prediction, do not show a general change in misconduct perception when students become more mature. Universities should pay more attention to this problem and take action.
Academic and research misconduct in the PhD: Issues for students and supervisors
Nurse Education Today, Volume 28, Issue 2, February 2008, Pages 218-226
Theresa Mitchell, Jude Carroll
Summary:There are many pressures upon PhD students not least the requirement to make an original or significant contribution to knowledge. Some students, confronted with complex research processes, might adopt practices that compromise standards that are unacceptable within a research community. These practices challenge the PhD student–supervisor relationship and have implication for the individual, the supervisory team, the institution, the awarding body and the wider research context.
Discussion relating to misconduct within the PhD is of international importance if the aim is to encourage and facilitate rigorous research practice.
Cases involving academic and research misconduct, especially those occurring at PhD level, are likely to become more frequent as numbers of PhD students increase and will demand appropriate, defensible responses from supervisors. Misconduct during PhD study can be difficult to resolve because of lack of clarity in definitions, supervisor naı¨veté and failure to acknowledge students’ decision making limitations.
Using scenarios from the first author’s supervisory practice to illustrate issues of concern for students and supervisors during PhD supervision, the authors aim to illuminate the importance of engagement with regulatory bodies; problems of knowledge and understanding transfer; culturally specific issues and meanings of academic theft.
附：有关“学术不端”方面的主要术语
学术不端：academic misconduct; research misconduct; scientific misconduct; academic fraud; academic dishonesty; unethical academic behaviors
学术规范: academic norm
学术道德; academic ethics; research ethics
学术剽窃：academic theft
学术道德规范：research ethical norms
捏造（编造）：fabrication
抄袭（剽窃）：plagiarism
科学精神：ethos of science
