High School Statutory Authority:
Self-regulation and international trends Introduction Many will be aware of the case involving a researcher at Oslo University Hospital Rikshospitalet-Radiumhospitalet.
In brief, an independent commission of inquiry appointed in declared that the researcher had deliberately fabricated data fictitious patient material and thus committed research misconduct.
A total of 13 scientific articles had to be withdrawn. In addition, the University of Oslo stripped the researcher of his doctoral degree. This case made scientific misconduct front-page news in both the Norwegian and international media. This was an awkward situation for Norwegian research, whose reputation in the domestic as well as the international arena suffered a setback when the case came to light.
Immediately prior to this scandal, the world had witnessed the indictment of the South Korean cloning researcher Woo Suk Hwang for research misconduct.
From having nearly iconic status, Hwang became known as a large-scale fraudster who received a prison sentence Kaiser Since then, other cases have made newspaper headlines. In Europe, these include a number of plagiarism cases in Germany, in which cabinet ministers were involved.
In Denmark, the case involving comprehensive misconduct associated with animal experiments conducted by a young and very promising brain researcher, Milena Penkowa, has reappeared in the headlines for years.
Finally, we can mention the research misconduct committed over many years by a recognised Dutch social psychologist, Diederik Stapel. There are numerous other major well-known cases, older as well as more recent.
These reflect that misconduct may occur within all disciplines. For reasons of space, all these cases cannot be described here, but the references provide further information on sources on a number of previous cases, some of which involve obvious misconduct, whereas in others, the matter of guilt or intent in particular is less clear-cut Lundsgaard Hansen Definition Fraud, cheating in research, or research misconduct, which is the official term, is often defined as fabrication, falsification and plagiarism FFP.
Nor in Europe is there any generally accepted definition. Thus, there are some who believe that the FFP definition above is too narrow; in other words, it fails to capture all forms of research misconduct.
Others claim that an expanded definition will give rise to an excessively large grey area, making it difficult to identify research misconduct in practice. Instead, focus should be placed on those cases that obviously fall within a narrow definition.
The system of national research ethics committees became enshrined in the Act, and led to the establishment of the National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct. The Act had already been anticipated for a long time, but was adopted only in the wake of the case of the cancer researcher, referred to above.
Different attitudes to the extent of the problem and the issue of self-regulation versus national regulations etc. Some felt that this was not a major problem that required the establishment of large organisational bodies, but should be left to the research community to resolve.
This view appears to have lost ground in the last decade or so, however, in Norway as well as internationally. During the preparation of the Act there was wide debate as to whether the broad or the narrow definition should be used.
It goes as follows: Scientific misconduct is defined as falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and other serious breaches of good research practice that have been committed wilfully or through gross negligence when planning, carrying out or reporting on research italics added.
In other words, the definition goes beyond FFP. It is also worth noting that the Act operates on the concept of so-called subjective guilt.
So what is good research practice? There is no absolute definition for this, either; scarcely within the individual disciplines, and none at all across disciplines.
Traditions and cultures differ from one discipline to another.
Sep 22, · Fraud and plagiarism. It may be tempting to dress up in borrowed plumage (plagiarise/refrain from referring to one’s sources), cook data (falsify data) or simply invent (fabricate) data, and disregard the fact that this violates fundamental and internationally accepted rules for good research practice. Retraction, Dishonesty and Plagiarism: Analysis of a Crucial Issue for Academic Publishing, and the Inadequate Responses plagiarism and dishonesty in the academic world in general, and business and economics journals in particular. 2. Literature review cases, the consequences for the misbehaving individual have been severe. Why Do Students Plagiarize? Sadly, plagiarism is a common occurrence in schools across the country, and around the world. It's frequently discovered in high schools, colleges and universities, and even graduate-level schools and programs.
The extent of research misconduct A distinction can be drawn between fraud or cheating on the one hand and negligence, blunders or plain errors on the other, or between questionable research and plain sloppiness or poor execution Kalleberg Another way of expressing largely the same idea, and more in line with internationally recognised or used concepts, is to distinguish between serious breaches of good research practice misconduct and less serious breaches.
Here we cannot speak of clear lines of distinction, but of considerable grey areas. In addition to these, there are accidental errors and similar that will tend to be excluded from the definition. So what is the magnitude of serious research misconduct, provided that there is agreement on the definition?
Nobody knows with any certainty, and opinions are divided even here. Some believe that the serious cases are few in number, and that serious cases tend to be discovered. Others are of the opinion that we see only the tip of the iceberg, and that some cases including serious ones are swept under the carpet, because this happens to be the most agreeable solution.
Given the stiff competition for funding, a bad reputation is the last thing anybody needs.By submitting this form I agree that I can be contacted using the email or phone number that I provided.
Sep 22, · Fraud and plagiarism. It may be tempting to dress up in borrowed plumage (plagiarise/refrain from referring to one’s sources), cook data (falsify data) or simply invent (fabricate) data, and disregard the fact that this violates fundamental and internationally accepted rules for good research practice.
Why Do Students Plagiarize? Sadly, plagiarism is a common occurrence in schools across the country, and around the world. It's frequently discovered in high schools, colleges and universities, and even graduate-level schools and programs.
Policy Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism. Originator: Provost and Chief Academic Officer Subject: Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism Introduction This Policy describes academic integrity and the procedures for handling academic dishonesty and plagiarism at UMUC.
The Online Writing Lab (OWL) at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue. This Policy describes academic integrity and the procedures for handling academic dishonesty and plagiarism at UMUC.
Academic Integrity In accordance with the Board of Regents Policy III Policy on Faculty, Student and Institutional Rights and Responsibility for Academic Integrity, approved on November 30, , UMUC endeavors to foster academic integrity throughout the academic community.