Scientific Dishonesty Research Articles

Academic Ethics of Islamic Higher Education Institutions in the Digital Era

This article is the result of field research conducted at Islamic higher education institutions with the aim of obtaining valid and credible information about academic ethics amid the advancements in technology and information. The digital era has transformed the conditions of the inhabitants of the earth, serving as a blessing from the advancement of information technology. The face of education and scientific activities has also been influenced by this era, with the advent of digitalization as an enhancement to previous technologies. Misuse of digital media can erode ethical values both in social life and academic activities. Cheating and scientific dishonesty have become serious issues in higher education, particularly related to research and other scientific activities. The method used is descriptive qualitative, involving observations, interviews, and document reviews. The findings indicate that Islamic higher education institutions have established academic ethics based on laws, government regulations, and mutual agreements. Furthermore, there is a lack of research conducted by educators or lecturers as well as students, along with other academic activities. In the educational institutions where the observations were made, no serious academic violations such as plagiarism were found. The digital era still leaves a significant challenge, particularly in scientific activities, in reinforcing academic ethics.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY GAMES IN EDUCATION

The paper investigates the promotion of academic integrity (AcadI) by implementing the method of gamification in the educational process. The aim of the research is to highlight the complex of games on AcadI as one of the prospective forms of work with youth at general secondary education institutions (GSEIs) and higher education institutions (HEIs). Methods. To achieve the goal, the following methods were used: theoretical (analysis, synthesis of scientific and pedagogical sources) and empirical (observation of the educational process). Results and discussion. Based on their own experience, the authors of the article highlight the system of AcadI games, which is considered as several educational game practices that help teachers educate students on aspects of AcadI, develop their knowledge about academic integrity, prevent scientific dishonesty, give them good citation practice, improve their ability to correctly cite sources and format their scientific work, etc. The system of AcadI games was used in the content of the Educational course "Methodology and Organisation of Professional Research and Academic Integrity" for students of the second (master's) level of higher education in the specialties 014 Secondary Education (Ukrainian Language and Literature), 014 Secondary Education (Language and Foreign Literature (English)) and 014 Secondary Education (Language and Foreign Literature (German)) at University of Hryhorii Skovoroda University in Pereiaslav (HSUP). It was based on 3 dominant learning approaches (storytelling, interactivity, and situational learning) and divided into 3 groups, namely: 1) situational games, 2) storytelling games, 3) interactive AcadI games through online learning tools ("You Quote It, You Note It", "Goblin Threat"), apps ("Dilemma Game"), and platforms ("Integrity Games Platform"). These AcadI games are used as a group, pair and/or individual tasks at practical lessons, individual tasks for self-study work, and as a preparatory element to an individual research work. Conclusions. It was attempted to highlight the system of Academic Integrity games, that is considered by authors as crucial and can be easily used for students, studying English as a foreign language, of all levels and specialties at HEIs, GSEIs, colleges and institutes, etc. The implementation of such games incorporates proactive action in building a culture of honesty/integrity and fostering ethical behaviour of youth in educational institutions. The prospects of the research are seen in the pedagogical experiment of checking the effectiveness of the highlighted complex of AcadI games in teacher training at HSUP.

ФОРМУВАННЯ АКАДЕМІЧНОЇ ДОБРОЧЕСНОСТІ У ЗДОБУВАЧІВ ЕКОНОМІЧНОЇ ОСВІТИ: СУЧАСНІ РЕАЛІЇ ТА ПЕРСПЕКТИВИ

The article examines the current challenges and opportunities in the formation of academic integrity among students majoring in 073 Management and 075 Marketing. Focusing on the current situation, the author analyzes important concepts such as research ethics, plagiarism, and other forms of scientific dishonesty that can affect the formation of integrity among students. The factors that influence the formation of academic integrity, such as ethical standards, moral values, and educational practices that promote the development of intellectual honesty among students majoring in 073 Management and 075 Marketing, are considered. The article analyzes current trends in academia, including the rise of plagiarism and other forms of dishonesty. The problem of plagiarism is especially important in the economic field because of the spread of ideas, so economic data and research can have a direct impact on decision-making in society. The article examines various methods and strategies that can be used to improve the level of academic integrity among students of economic specialties. The author emphasizes the importance of fostering responsibility and integration in educational programs, as well as the use of modern technologies to detect and prevent academic misconduct. The article also discusses the prospects for further research in this area and points to the need to develop effective strategies and programs to raise students’ awareness of the ethical aspects of academic work. The study highlights the importance of cooperation between universities, teaching staff and student groups to create a favorable environment for the development of academic integrity. The author of the article puts forward a number of recommendations for practical application aimed at improving the efficiency of the educational process and raising the level of professional morality among future economists. He emphasizes the importance of a systematic approach to this problem and the need to constantly monitor and update strategies in line with changes in society and technology. In conclusion, the article offers an in-depth analysis of the current realities and prospects for the formation of academic integrity among students in 073 Management and 075 Marketing and also points to ways to further develop research and practical measures in this area.

Research Integrity Attitudes and Behaviors are Difficult to alter: Results from a ten Year Follow-up Study in Norway.

Background: Research integrity has obtained much attention in research communities, but also in the general public. To improve research integrity is difficult as it involves complex systems of knowledge, attitudes, and practices. The objective of this study is to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of cohorts of PhD candidates at one faculty (of medicine) over time and compare this to finished PhDs of the same cohorts. Material and method: Researchers (n = 186) awarded the degree PhD at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2019 were invited to answer a questionnaire about knowledge, attitudes and actions related to scientific dishonesty. 94 responded (50.5%). The results were compared with results among first-year PhD candidates who responded to the same questionnaire during 2010-20 (n = 536) and to those who finished PhDs in 2016 (n = 86). Results: For the years 2010-2020 1.1% of the PhD candidates report to have engaged in severe scientific misconduct (FFP) while 0.9% report to have presented results in a misleading way. 2.3% report that they know of persons at their department who have engaged in FFP the last 12 months. In total 1.5% report to have experienced pressure to engage in severe scientific misconduct (FFP) while 2.1% report to have experienced pressure to present results in a misleading way. On average 12.8% report to have been exposed to unethical pressure concerning inclusion or ordering of authors during the last 12 months, and 28.8% report to have knowledge about their department's written policies about research integrity. While some attitudes improve over the years, attitudes in general are not much changed from 2010-2020. None of the PhDs that received a PhD from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2019 reported to have engaged in FFT or having experienced pressure to do so.1.1% experienced pressure to present results in other misleading ways, while 26.6% of respondents had experienced unethical pressure in relation to authorship during the course of the PhD fellowship. 4.3% knew about someone at their department who had presented results in a misleading manner. Some attitudes were not in line with traditional conceptions of research integrity, but most agreed that their research environment displayed research integrity. Conclusion: This long-term follow up study shows that few PhD-candidates report to engage in severe scientific misconduct, that they experience little pressure to do so, and with some exceptions, attitudes in in line with good research integrity. However, pressure in relation to authorship is relatively common. There is some improvement in research integrity from PhD candidates to recently finished PhDs, but in general research integrity is stable over time.

Retraction statement: First report of novel heterozygous WRAP53 p.Ala522Glyfs*8 mutation associated dyskeratosis congenita.

British Journal of HaematologyVolume 197, Issue 6 p. 804-804 RETRACTIONFree Access Retraction statement: First report of novel heterozygous WRAP53 p.Ala522Glyfs*8 mutation associated dyskeratosis congenita This article retracts the following: Retracted: First report of novel heterozygous WRAP53 p.Ala522Glyfs*8 mutation associated dyskeratosis congenita Tylan Magnusson, Richard C. Godby, Kimo Bachiashvili, Omer Jamy, Volume 196Issue 4British Journal of Haematology pages: e27-e29 First Published online: October 14, 2021 First published: 25 May 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.18282AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat The above article1 from the British Journal of Haematology, published online on 14 October 2021 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), and in Volume, pp. e27–e29, has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Senior Editor, Prof. Peter Hokland MD, and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed upon following a concern raised to the journal by a third party regarding a possible error in the sequencing of the material used to support the conclusions of the paper. The journal sought independent expertise, which agreed with the third party that the sequencing error invalidates the article's conclusions. The author and the journal have therefore decided to retract the article. The supplementary information for this article was removed at the request of the authors before the article's retraction and with the approval of the journal and publisher. The file included confidential patient information which was not detectable to the naked eye but could be uncovered using software. The journal finds that the errors described are inadvertent and do in not in any way suggest scientific dishonesty on the part of the authors. REFERENCES 1Magnusson T, Godby RC, Bachiashvili K, Jamy O. First report of novel heterozygous WRAP53 p.Ala522Glyfs*8 mutation associated dyskeratosis congenita. Br J Haematol. 2022; 196: e27– 9. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.17883Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Volume197, Issue6June 2022Pages 804-804 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Research on the Influencing Factors of Scientific Researchers' Integrity Based on Grounded Theory

At present, the issue of scientific research integrity has become a hot issue of common concern to academia and the public, and scientific research personnel' research misconduct has always been the focus prevention area of scientific research integrity, so it is the key to prevent and curb breach of trust from the source. This study conducts semi-structured interviews with 26 scientific researchers, uses rooted theories to encode the original data, and constructs an analysis framework for theinfluencing factors of scientific research credibility from four dimensions: scientific research literacy, personal literacy, resource environment and institutional policies. Research shows that the personal accomplishment and scientific research literacy of scientific researchers are internal driving factors that directly determine the frequency and intensity of their scientific research dishonesty behaviour. The resource environment and system policy are external driving factors that indirectly affect the scientific research credibility of scientific researchers. The research results provide countermeasures and ideas for further standardising the behaviour of scientific researchers and creating a healthy academic environment.

A New Case of Scientific Dishonesty in the Field of Parapsychology

The present article informs about a case of prolonged scientific dishonesty in the field of parapsychology. It emerged that Alejandro Parra, an active member of the parapsychological community since about three decades, has published substantially plagiarized books and articles since at least 2007. Currently, I am aware of 20 publications that contain plagiarized sections or consist almost entirely of plagiarism. In the following, I present striking examples of such plagiarized texts and provide background information about the development of this case. Parra even presented research results obtained by others as his own research results, which amounts to data fabrication. Therefore, I conclude one cannot trust any of his books and articles. Even Parra’s publications that contain data obtained in surveys or experimental studies must be disregarded by the scientific community unless the validity of their raw data has been very carefully established by examinations performed by others.

New Developments in Publishing Related to Authorship.

To present the inappropriate types of authorship and practice, and the most recent developments related to basic principles and criteria to a fair system for allocating authorship in scientific publications. An analysis of relevant materials and documents, sources from the internet and published literature and personal experience and observations of the author. Working in multidisciplinary teams is a common feature of modern research processes. The most sensitive question is how to decide on who to acknowledge as author of a multi-authored publication. The pertinence of this question is growing with the increasing importance of individual scientists' publication records for professional status and career. However, discussions about authorship allocation might lead to serious conflicts and disputes among coworkers which could even endanger cooperation and successful completion of a research project. It seems that discussion and education about ethical standards and practical guidelines for fairly allocating authorship are insufficient and the question of ethical practices related to authorship in multi-authored publications remains generally unresolved. It is necessary to work for raising awareness about the importance and need for education about principles of scientific communication and fair allocation of authorship, ethics of research and publication of results. The use of various forms of education in the scientific community, especially young researchers and students, in order to create an ethical environment, is one of the most effective ways to prevent the emergence of scientific and publication dishonesty and fraud, including pathology of authorship.

Research integrity: environment, experience, or ethos?

Background: Research integrity has gained attention in the general public as well as in the research community. We wanted to investigate knowledge, attitudes, and practices amongst researchers that have recently finished their PhD and compare this to their responses during their PhD fellowship. In particular, we wanted to investigate whether their attitudes are related to their experiences of their immediate research environment. Material and method: Researchers ( n = 86) awarded the PhD degree at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2016 were invited to answer a questionnaire about knowledge, attitudes, and actions related to scientific dishonesty. Seventy-two responded (83.7%). The results were compared with results among first-year doctoral students who responded to the same questionnaire during 2010–2017. Results: Overall, 13% of PhDs reported that they knew of people in their immediate research environment who had committed serious forms of scientific dishonesty. A small percentage of PhDs (1.4%) indicated that they themselves had committed such acts. About 3% of the candidates had experienced pressure to commit serious forms of dishonesty and nearly a third of respondents had experienced unethical pressure with respect to authorship during the course of their fellowship. Thirteen percent reported that they had experienced unethical pressure in relation to other forms of dishonesty and 11% had experienced the consequences of some form of scientific dishonesty. Eighteen percent of the respondents believed that one or more actions, which in the literature were perceived as scientific misconduct, were not wrong. We find a connection between attitudes and the perceived research integrity of their research environment. The results also show a difference between PhD students and graduated PhDs in terms of scientific dishonesty. In some areas, the PhDs’ norms are stricter, such as for the use of statistical analysis methods, while there is little change in others, such as in misconduct in order to expedite publications. Conclusion: Many PhDs knew about serious forms of scientific misconduct from the research environment in which they are trained, and some also report misconduct themselves. Some experienced pressure to serious forms of misconduct and a large proportion of the respondents had experienced unethical pressure with respect to authorship during their fellowship. Attitudes change during the PhD studies, but ambiguously. Scientific misconduct seems to be an environmental issue as much as a matter of personal integrity.

Kartelisasi Sitasi Ditinjau Dari Perspektif Kristen

This article discusses the issue of "citation cartelization" which is viewed from a Christian perspective. A review from a Christian point of view is needed in order to give a view to Christian academics, so that they can take a stand regarding the issue. From the results of the analysis, "citation cartelization" is a citation control measure in an effort to increase the number of citations which ultimately has an impact on increasing index rank in indexing and ranking machines on the Sinta page. In addition, "citation cartelization" is a scientific dishonesty, because efforts to increase the number of citations are carried out by encouraging others to cite one's scientific work even though there is no relevance.

Квазінауковий секонд-хенд сучасного літературознавства: фальсифікаційно-плагіатні стратегії

The article examines the specifics of constitution and modification of self-depicted and self-reflective activity as a separate type of cultural practice which is called to monitor and correct the literary studies process at theoretical and methodological levels as well as at value and ethical levels. The author demonstrates, with the help of the case study, the destructive coming into the field of cultural production. Ukrainian meta-literary studies are formed as intellectual, further – cultural, practice with its specific tasks (analytical and descriptive, comparative and combinational, correctional and observational), functions (the creation of the cultural meaning and the encouragement of its circulation at the scientific field, the animation of critical self-reflection, the creation of community which shares common values connected with the field of high quality cultural production) and strategies (canonization, recanonization and decanonization, contextualization, mapping). The analysis of meta-descriptive practices has shown that from the very beginning of the 2000th the noticeable turn from theory and methodology to ethic and axiology has taken place, and the activation of appeal and preventive strategies has been observed. These appeal-preventive strategies are targeted at increasing of intolerance to scientific dishonesty sensitivity threshold. The obtained results of the case study, on the one hand, point to a diversity and systematic character of quasi-scientific kitsch production «techniques». On the other hand, they make one think about the constitutional and functional peculiarities of not invited identity (in the Weber sense). Then the question arises: whether the permanent neuroticism and hidden implosion are the possible side effects of the scientific creativity game. Therefore, cynicism of falsification-plagiarism practices can be considered as the result of one’s certainty of the support from the community, which tolerates quasi-scientific second-hand as well as a distinctive defensive strategy against the threat of non-recognition by the community, guided by the values of scientific virtue. In this paper the fundamental role of S. Pavlychko’s issue «The methodological situation in contemporary Ukrainian literary studies» has been underlined. The author states that all subsequent issues in the field of Ukrainian postcolonial literary and meta-literary studies directly or indirectly refer to the main points contained in S. Pavlychko’s texts. This prominent researcher underlined the impossibility of non-theoretical status of literary criticism research papers.

Videnskabelig (u)redelighed - også et tema for lingvistik

The debate about scientific dishonesty over the last few years has revealed differences and confusion regarding scientific dishonesty. Every branch of science ought to have well-established criteria for scientific dishonesty, to be able to distinguish between sloppy science and dishonest science. Sc. dishonest behaviour is characterized by being dishonest or reckless, and by twisting the scientific message. The aim of this article is to a) provide a list of criteria to define scientific dishonesty, and b) exemplify and discuss specific linguistic aspects of the discussion. Furthermore it will be argued that agreeing on common rules is not enough as general rules can be interpreted differently. Therefore a common judgement is necessary, i.e. a committee, either local or national. It is recommended that any local institution establishes a committee of their own.

Scientific Dishonesty: A Survey of Doctoral Students at the Major Medical Faculties in Sweden and Norway.

As we need knowledge about the prevalence of scientific dishonesty, this study investigates the knowledge of, experiences with, and attitudes toward various forms of scientific dishonesty among PhD students at the main medical faculties in Sweden and Norway. An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to all post-graduate research students attending basic PhD courses at the medical faculties in Stockholm and Oslo during the fall 2014. The responding doctoral students reported to know about various forms of scientific dishonesty from the literature, in their department, and for some also through their own experience. Some forms of scientific misconduct were considered to be acceptable by a significant minority. There was a high level of willingness to report misconduct but little awareness of relevant policies for scientific conduct.

Scientific Disintegrity as a Public Bad

In this article, I argue that scientific dishonesty essentially results from an incentive problem; I do so using a standard economic model—the public bad. Arguably, at least in the short run, most scientists would increase their personal utility by being sloppy with scientific standards. Yet, if they do, it becomes more difficult for all scientists to make their voice heard in society, to convince policy makers to assign public funds to academia, and to lead fulfilling academic lives. The nature of the ensuing governance problem (and appropriate policy intervention) hinges on the definition of scientists’ utility function. The policy problem is less grave if society attaches disproportionally more weight to severe or widespread violations and if individual scientists do not precisely know in advance when they will quit their academic lives. If most scientists internalize most scientific standards, then the problem is alleviated. However, internalization is immaterial if honorable scientists dislike that others advance their careers by violating those standards. Sanctions are helpful, even if relatively mild. However, it is important to also punish those who do not punish others for breaking the rules or, alternatively, to put some centralized mechanism for vigilance and enforcement into place.

Plagiarism in medical scientific research

Abstract Objectives Plagiarism is defined as “the practice of taking someone else's words, work or ideas and passing them off as one's own”. It is probably the most common form of scientific dishonesty found in research articles. The aim of this review is to present a comprehensive account about plagiarism to raise awareness of all aspects of plagiarism. Methods The key words “plagiarism”, “types”, “detection” and “consequences” were used to retrieve articles from the MEDLINE database. Results About five hundred articles were retrieved. Articles were divided into subgroups, with each group covering an aspect of plagiarism. Main findings and updates were summarized for each topic. The main reason behind plagiarism was found to be a lack of knowledge about the subject. When coupled with insufficient time, immature writing skills and the pressure on researchers to get their work published in good journals, authors take unacknowledged pieces of others' work and commit plagiarism. In the past, it was difficult to detect plagiarism; however, in recent years, many plagiarism-detection services and software programs have become available. The present article details how journals use these services and software as a helpful tool to check for plagiarism in submitted manuscripts. Within academia, plagiarism is an offense that can be devastating. Conclusion Plagiarism is the most common problem in research writing. The cornerstone in preventing this problem from getting worse is to raise awareness about how to cope with this growing problem of research misconduct.

New developments in publishing related to authorship.

To present the inappropriate types of authorship and practice, and the most recent developments related to basic principles and criteria to a fair system for allocating authorship in scientific publications. An analysis of relevant materials and documents, sources from the internet and published literature and personal experience and observations of the author. Working in multidisciplinary teams is a common feature of modern research processes. The most sensitive question is how to decide on who to acknowledge as author of a multi-authored publication. The pertinence of this question is growing with the increasing importance of individual scientists' publication records for professional status and career. However, discussions about authorship allocation might lead to serious conflicts and disputes among coworkers which could even endanger cooperation and successful completion of a research project. It seems that discussion and education about ethical standards and practical guidelines for fairly allocating authorship are insufficient and the question of ethical practices related to authorship in multi-authored publications remains generally unresolved. It is necessary to work for raising awareness about the importance and need for education about principles of scientific communication and fair allocation of authorship, ethics of research and publication of results. The use of various forms of education in the scientific community, especially young researchers and students, in order to create an ethical environment, is one of the most effective ways to prevent the emergence of scientific and publication dishonesty and fraud, including pathology of authorship.

Scientific integrity in Brazil.

This article focuses on scientific integrity and the identification of predisposing factors to scientific misconduct in Brazil. Brazilian scientific production has increased in the last ten years, but the quality of the articles has decreased. Pressure on researchers and students for increasing scientific production may contribute to scientific misconduct. Cases of misconduct in science have been recently denounced in the country. Brazil has important institutions for controlling ethical and safety aspects of human research, but there is a lack of specific offices to investigate suspected cases of misconduct and policies to deal with scientific dishonesty.

Definitions of Fraud and Misconduct Revisited

Abstract Definitions of fraud and misconduct are not ethically neutral, and they have implications for the process and procedure of investigations into cases of suspected fraud and misconduct. The aim of this paper is to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of some current definitions of fraud and misconduct, including disjunctive and parallel sets of definitions. Possible purposes of these definitions are explained. Since intention to deceive is difficult to prove, and word often stands against word, allegations may be difficult or impossible to substantiate. If the accused person is not proven guilty, this may be perceived as a signal to the research community that the accused was innocent - even though the work by the accused author contains many serious deviations from good research practice. It turns out that several distinctions need to be made between different kinds of fraud and misconduct, and that these have implications for how best to deal way with suspected scientific dishonesty.

Multiauthorship and false authorship: why worrying about this?

Authorship and authorship abuse are in the focus of interest of all main actors in the publication game--authors, reviewers and editors of scientific journals. Along with the steady rise of the number of publications, the number of coauthors in multiauthored papers raises even more, some of them being undeserved authors. Because publication is the main way for evaluating scientists, authorship is prone to abuse, and thus the false/undeserved/gift authorship emerges. This dilutes the responsibility and damages the publication enterprise, thus initiating a constant struggle of scientific community against this type of scientific dishonesty. In this paper, several prevention and corrective measures with the aim to diminish such a dishonest behavior of authors are described.

Scientific dishonesty—a nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway

BackgroundThe knowledge of scientific dishonesty is scarce and heterogeneous. Therefore this study investigates the experiences with and the attitudes towards various forms of scientific dishonesty among PhD-students at the medical faculties of all Norwegian universities.MethodAnonymous questionnaire distributed to all post graduate students attending introductory PhD-courses at all medical faculties in Norway in 2010/2011. Descriptive statistics.Results189 of 262 questionnaires were returned (72.1%). 65% of the respondents had not, during the last year, heard or read about researchers who committed scientific dishonesty. One respondent had experienced pressure to fabricate and to falsify data, and one had experienced pressure to plagiarize data. On average 60% of the respondents were uncertain whether their department had a written policy concerning scientific conduct. About 11% of the respondents had experienced unethical pressure concerning the order of authors during the last 12 months. 10% did not find it inappropriate to report experimental data without having conducted the experiment and 38% did not find it inappropriate to try a variety of different methods of analysis to find a statistically significant result. 13% agreed that it is acceptable to selectively omit contradictory results to expedite publication and 10% found it acceptable to falsify or fabricate data to expedite publication, if they were confident of their findings. 79% agreed that they would be willing to report misconduct to a responsible official.ConclusionAlthough there is less scientific dishonesty reported in Norway than in other countries, dishonesty is not unknown to doctoral students. Some forms of scientific misconduct are considered to be acceptable by a significant minority. There was little awareness of relevant policies for scientific conduct, but a high level of willingness to report misconduct.