RESEARCH ETHICS

&
ACADEMIC HONESTY

Dr Mayank Trivedi
University Librarian & Senate Member
The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda
Date : 10th August, 2020
2
TERMINOLOGIES
 Research integrity
 Research misconduct

 Fabrication

 Plagiarism

 Whistle-blowing

 Serious deviation

 Unacceptable research practice

 Falsification

 Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

3
OUT LINE
 Ethics and success
 Common reasons for unethical behavior
 Concepts of ethics
 Meaning of ethics
 Good research and ethical research
 Ethical theories
 The Nuremberg code of ethics
 Student’s participation in research
 Employees participation in research
 Data collection
 Data presentation
 Authorship
 The process of obtaining funding
 References 4
WHAT ARE ETHICS?
The connection between ethics, law and
public policy originates from Plato’s
‘Norms’ (Nomoi)

In this treatise he stresses the

importance of
of introductions (proimia)
which are deemed essential to make
laws and regulations understandable
and acceptable to the citizen.
5
ETHOS
 According to Aristotle morality =
ethos provides humans with the basis for
political and legal practice.

 Modern day ethics may have arisen out of human

need to survive within the framework of a
functional society.

 Depend on continuous reflection and re-

assessment of constantly evolving customs,
traditions and manners.
6
RESEARCH ETHICS
“Greek ethos ‘character’ is the
systematic study of value concepts—
good, bad, right, wrong and the
general principles that justify
applying these concepts”.

Joan E. Sieber
Planning Ethically Responsible Research, p. 3

7
RESEARCH ETHICS
“Ethics is the disciplined study or
morality….and morality asks the
question…what should one’s
behavior be”
Basically, there are two types of ethics,

Descriptive Ethics
Which asks what does the culture or society believe is morally correct?

The other type or Prescriptive Ethics asks:

 How should I behave as a researcher?

 What character traits should I cultivate?

Jeff Cooper
Albany Medical Center, Ethical Decision Making, 2001, p. 1
RESEARCH ETHICS
Six Norms of Scientific Research
❖ Valid research design – takes into account relevant theory,
methods, and prior findings
❖ Competence of researcher – capable to carry out the procedures
❖ Identification of consequences – assessment of risks and
benefits (maximizing benefit and minimizing risk)
❖ Selection of subjects – appropriate to the purposes of the study,
representative of the population that will benefit from the research
and appropriate in number
❖ Voluntary informed consent – obtained before study begins,
without undue threat or inducement, with enough information, and
agreement to participate
❖ Compensation for injury – responsibility for what happens to the
subject (federal law requires that subjects be informed about
compensation, but does not require compensation)
9
RESEARCH ETHICS: KEY PRINCIPLES
 Autonomy: The participant must normally be as aware as
possible of what the research is for and be free to take part in
it without coercion or penalty for not taking part, and also free to
withdraw at any time without giving a reason and without a
threat of any adverse effect.
 Beneficence: The research must be worthwhile in itself
and have beneficial effects that outweigh any risks; it follows
that the methodology must be sound so that best results will be
yielded.
 Non maleficence: Any possible harm must be avoided or at
least mitigated by robust precautions.
 Confidentiality: Personal data must remain unknown to all
but the research team (unless the participant agrees otherwise
or in cases where there is an overriding public interest, or where
participants wish their voices to be heard and identified).
 Integrity: The researcher must be open about any actual or
potential conflicts of interest

10
CONCEPTS OF ETHICS
 Moral Sensitivity:
 “ The ability to recognize an issue or a problem as a moral
problem”
(Penslar,1995 ).
 Identifying actions or ranges of actions that might define
some actions that are ethical and some actions that are
unethical like the use of animals in research.
 Moral reasoning:
 “Is the process of thinking about proper course of action when
faced with an ethical challenge” (Penslar, 1995 ).
 Not different from scientific reasoning but practice is a good
idea.
 Moral commitment:
 “Is what takes to choose a ethically sound course of action
over an unethical course of action” (Penslar, 1995 ).
 What is the primary commitment
 Ethics
 Wealth 11
 Successful research
CONCEPTS AND MEANING OF ETHICS
 Moral perseverance:
 “Is having the ego strength and tenacity to follow through on one’s
decisions”
 Similar to moral commitment but not identical.
 Lack of moral commitment might lead a person to act unethically,
and some one with moral commitment might still act unethically if
he became under pressure to do so.

 Meaning of ethics
 “Derived from the Greek ethos, meaning character, custom, or
usage, or morality
( from the Latin synonym meaning manner,custom or habit), is the
philosophical study of normative behavior, the “shoulds” and
“oughts”, the”rights” and “wrongs” of our conduct.” (Penslar,
1995 ).
 “Research ethics is a kind of applied ethics”
 Resolves practical problems in the conduct of research.
 Moral acceptability or appropriateness of specific conduct and
the actions to be done. 12
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
► What is it?:
 Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing,
performing, or reviewing research results.
► Fabrication: making up results and recording or reporting them
► Falsification: manipulation of research materials, equipment, or

processes, or changing or omitting results such that the research is not

accurately represented in the record.
► Plagiarism: the appropriation of another’s ideas, processes, results, or

words without giving proper credit.

13
CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

▪ Represents a significant departure from

accepted practices
▪ Has been committed intentionally, or
knowingly, or recklessly; and
▪ Can be proven by a preponderance of evidence
▪ What is NOT MISCONDUCT: honest,
unintentional error

14
TOP TEN “POOR” BEHAVIORS
1. Falsifying or ‘cooking’ research data
2. Ignoring major aspects of human-subject requirements
3. Not properly disclosing involvement in firms whose
products are based on one‘s own research
4. Relationships with students, research subjects or
clients that may be interpreted as questionable
5. Using another’s ideas without obtaining
permission or giving due credit (plagiarism)
6. Unauthorized use of confidential information in
connection with one’s own research
7. Failing to present data that contradict one’s own
previous research ????
8. Circumventing certain minor aspects of human-
subject requirements 15
 TOP TEN BEHAVIORS
(CONTINUED)
9. Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable
interpretation of data
10. Changing the design, methodology or results of a study
in response to pressure from a funding source (falsification)

Other behaviors
11. Publishing the same data or results in two or more
publications
12. Inappropriately assigning authorship credit
13. Withholding details of methodology or results in papers
or proposals
14. Using inadequate or inappropriate research designs
15. Dropping observations or data points from analyses
based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate 16
16. Inadequate record keeping related to research projects
HOW IS MISCONDUCT IDENTIFIED

► Suspected and reported by a colleague

► Failure to confirm research results

by own lab or others

17
CONSEQUENCES (IF MISCONDUCT IS
SUBSTANTIATED)
► Withdrawal or correction of all pending and
published papers and abstracts affected by the
misconduct
► Reprimand, removal from project, rank and salary
reduction, dismissal
► Restitution of funds to the granting agency
► Ineligibility to apply for Federal grants for years
► Undermine Public Trust
► Misuse of Public funds
► Harms to the health and well-being of research
participants
► Adoption of erroneous policies
► Release of unsafe products
► Tarnishing the reputation of research institutions,
research groups or individual researchers 18
► I.E. the end of your research career!
BACKGROUND
Research Integrity concerns all stages of research
process:
a. Research design
b. Methodology

c. Data collection and analysis

d. Interpretation and presentation of
research results
e. Requires reflection on the social impact of
the research

19
 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR RESEARCH
INTEGRITY

Principles:
•Reliability

•Honesty

•Respect

•Accountability

20
SCIENTIFIC PAPER
 A scientific paper is a written and published report
describing original research results.
 An accepted original scientific publication containing
scientific information
 A scientific experiment is not complete until the
results have been published and understood
 A scientific paper is a paper organized to meet
the needs of valid publication.
 The well-written scientific paper should report
its original data in an organized fashion and in
appropriate language....

21
ORIGINALITY
 Not republishing the same findings(except under
special circumstances, with the original source
cited)
 Not submitting the same manuscript to two or more
journals at once
 Not dividing one research project into many little
papers (“salami science”- Salami science is
reporting the results of a single study in 2 or more
manuscripts)

22
ORIGINS OF SCIENTIFIC WRITING

 Knowledge is lost without written records

 Knowledge could not be widely circulated with
no effective duplication
 Knowledge is awareness or understanding of
someone or something, such as facts,
information, descriptions, or skills, which is
acquired through experience or education by
perceiving, discovering, or learning.

23
KNOWLEDGE IS LOST
WITHOUT WRITTEN RECORDS

 Cave paintings and

inscriptions were the first
attempts to leave records
 About 2000 BC, Papyrus
paper was used as a
medium of communication
 In 190 BC, parchment
made from animal skin
came into use
 In 105 AD, the Chinese
invented paper

24
DUPLICATION

 Knowledge could not be widely circulated with

no effective duplication
1. In 1100 AD, the Chinese invented movable type
2. In 1455 AD, Gutenberg printed his 42-line Bible from
movable type on a printing press
3. By the year 1500 AD thousands of copies of
hundreds of books were printed
4. In 1665, the first scientific journals were
published
5. Incunabula
25
 INCUNABULA
 An incunable or
sometimes incunabulum (plural incunables or incunabula,
respectively), is a book, pamphlet,
or broadside printed in Europe before the 16th century.
Incunabula are not manuscripts, which are documents
written by hand.
 As of 2014, there are about 30,000 distinct known
incunable editions extant, but the probable number of surviving
copies in Germany alone is estimated at around 125,000

26
SCIENTIFIC PAPER FORMAT
 A scientific paper is a  Editorial practice
written report
 Scientific Ethics
describing original
research results whose  Printing/Publishing
format has been Procedures
defined by centuries  The result of this
of developing process is that virtually
tradition, editorial every scientific paper
practice, scientific has a title, abstract,
ethics and the introduction,
interplay with materials and
printing and digital methods, results and
publishing services. discussion – the so-
called IMRD
structure.
27
RESEARCH PAPER: THE IMRAD FORMAT
 Most scientific papers are prepared according to a
format called IMRAD.
 The term represents the first letters of the words
Introduction, Materials and Methods,
Results, And, Discussion.
 An important point to keep in mind is that there
is no standard or uniform style that is
followed by all journals.
 Each journal has its own style; but they all
have their own Instructions to Authors .
 Once you select a journal to which you wish
to submit your manuscript
 Please follow the Journal’s “INSTRUCTIONS
TO AUTHORS” 28
ORGANIZATION OF A RESEARCH PAPER:
THE IMRAD FORMAT
 The most common is the IMRAD: If a
 I = Introduction, number of methods were used to
achieve directly related results:
what problem was studied
 M + R = Experimental section
 M = Methods,
The results are so complex that they
how was the problem need to be immediately discussed:
studied  R + D = Results and Discussion
section
 R = Results,
 It indicates a pattern or format rather
what are the findings than a complete list of headings or
components of research papers; the
 A = and missing parts of a paper are: Title,
 D = Discussion, Authors, Keywords, Abstract,
Conclusions, and References.
what do these findings  Additionally, some papers include
mean Acknowledgments and 29
Appendices.
HOW TO PREPARE THE TITLE

 Make a list of the most important keywords

 Think of a title that contains these words

 The title could state the conclusion of the paper

 The title NEVER contains abbreviations,

chemical formulas, proprietary names or jargon
 Think, rethink of the title before submitting the
paper
 Be very careful of the grammatical errors due to
faulty word order
 Avoid the use of the word “using”

30
RESEARCH INTEGRITY
Includes :
 The use of honest and verifiable methods in
proposing, performing, and evaluating
research
 Reporting research results with particular
attention to adherence to rules, regulations,
guidelines, and following commonly
accepted professional codes or norms
(Ethics).

31
MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION
 Electronic submission of papers for publication: the
days of a complicated, hard-copy paper trail are
gone ... good riddance!
 After deciding on the appropriate journal for
publication of your paper, carefully READ the
“Instructions to Authors” for that particular
journal.
 Pay attention to formatting requirements,
manuscript structure, literature citation style,
and allowable file types for figures,
illustrations, and tables.
 Ignoring the specific requirements for manuscript
formatting and organizational style can result
in your paper being returned for correction or put
reviewers and editors in a bad mood even before they
judge the quality of the science – not a good move!
32
WHAT CAN HAPPEN WHEN RESEARCH
LACKS INTEGRITY?
 Debarment from receipt of agency funding
 Supervision & certification of future research
 Stop research
 Termination
 Cancel the degree
 Formal reprimand and apology
 Ethical training
 Withholding pay
 Loss of Jobs
 High Crimes
 Research Misconduct
 Plagiarism
 Fabrication of data
 Falsification of data
 More egregious acts, such as a doctoral candidate fabricating significant amounts of
data in the dissertation, might result in rescission of a degree or termination.
 Obviously, it is the high crimes of research, or the acts of research misconduct, 33
that tend to reach the media and threaten public trust in research.
GOOD PUBLICATION PRACTICES
 Avoid misrepresentation in publications
 Publish accurate, complete, clear, and unbiased work
 Avoid fragmentary publication
 Publish manuscripts that represent substantial
findings
 Avoid duplicate manuscript submission & publication
 Publish research that will add new contributions to
the field
 Acknowledge prior publications
 A suitable footnote might read: “This article is based on a
study first reported in the [title of journal, with full
reference].”’ – ICJME guidelines
34
WHAT MIGHT LEAD TO UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR ?
 Ignorance
 Why some professors don’t teach ethics??
 The are not qualified
 By the time students go to college their character is already
shaped
 High expectations:

 We teach Mathematics but don’t’ expect students to be

Mathematicians.
 We teach ethics to inform and not to make students ethicists

 Examples
 Students don’t understand how to site references properly and that leads
them to plagiarize.
 Teachers don’t pass on standards and rules.
 Running an experiment and using 96% of results. What do we do with
the remaining 4%
 How much work must be quoted without citation to plagiarize?
 Forgot to include a source or simply negligence. 35
IGNORANCE LEADING TO UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
 Policies and standards of the school or the
institution should be taught to the students.
 Make sure that policies and standards are
followed properly
 Before it used to be monitoring, but now it is not
enough since labs are growing and more money and
dead lines are involved.
 Telling students where to go with ethical
concerns and which dean to talk to if he needs that.

36
STRESS
 I must get this grant
 I need to get published
 I must meet this deadline
 Getting some thing done might seem more important than
how to get it done.
 Stress can not be removed but we can teach people how to deal
with it.
 Stress on teaching the virtue of science to pursuit knowledge
 Talk about the outcome of forging data and future consequences
 Patience and immediate result problem
 Teach students to talk to teachers:
 Protest the load of work
 Design the experiment is not working and that is leading to this data.
Change the design.
 Ask for help when they need it and help them when they ask.
 When things are not clear any more, step back and think objectively.
 Reduce the load of work
 Always think that there is an acceptable and ethical outcome
 Teach students to think under stress. 37
WHO WILL BLOW THE WHISTLE?
 What to do when you see some one behaving unethically?
 Relationship with that person will change the way you deal with the
situation
 A fellow faculty or a competitor.
 Students make mistakes, you need to tell them that it is wrong to do it
that way and direct them to the right way.
 Witnessing misconduct
 Make sure that there is abuse by documenting misconduct and try to get
witnesses and facts.
 Prepare a solid foundation.
 Approaching the situation the right way
 Can you explain those anomalies to me? OR How long have you been
forging data?
 If the person denies misconduct you need to go to higher level.
 Students must be taught to:
 Blow the whistle and report misconduct
 Which dean to talk to?
 What are the policies and regulations?
 What is an approved procedure to report misconduct? 38
GOOD RESEARCH AND ETHICAL RESEARCH
 Drawing the line between good research and ethical research is
not always clear.
 “Good research is concerned with the integrity and the soundness of
data, where as research ethics is concerned with the means the data was
collected”
 Research ethics is concerned with the well being of others( Society,
other people, animals) while standards concerning research does not
necessarily do that.
 Issues in research ethics:
 Conduct of individuals
 Research fraud
 Mistreatment of lab animals
 Accuracy and honesty in reporting results
 Plagiarism
 Violation of intellectual property rights
 Conflict of interests ( researchers among each other or researchers and
universities)
 Principle of the contribution to science as a whole.
 Check if a research is harmful to the society or to individuals.
 How universities should resolve their conflicts among them selves.
39
ETHICAL RESEARCH
 Helpful resources:
 Professional codes
 Statement of moral norms by members of a profession
 American Psychological association

 American Historical association

 Government regulations
 More like laws

 Use of humans as subjects of experiments

 Religion
 Cultural customs
 Ethical theories:
 Consequential ethics

 Deontological ethics

 Casuistical ethics

 Virtue ethics
40
BASIC ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
 The expression “basic ethical principles” refers to those general
judgments that serve as a basic justification for the many
particular ethical prescriptions and evaluations of human
actions.
 Respect for persons:
 The person should be treated as autonomous.

 The person with diminished autonomy is entitled to protection.

 Who is an autonomous person:

 Can think and discuss his personal goals and act under those goals.
 Protect hose who cannot make their own self determination or they are
not eligible for doing so.
 Beneficence:
 Not only respect their decisions and protect them from harm but also
make an effort to secure their well being.
 Think of this as an obligation and not a charity.

 Do not harm , and maximize possible benefits and minimize possible

harms.
 Justice:
 The right to be treated equally.

 Some one is denied benefits for no obvious reason.

 The principle of fairness in distribution.

41
STUDENT’S PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH
 The question of whether and in what way students are allowed to
participate in research.
 Student participation can be included as a course component for
course credit
( Commonly included in psychology departments).
 Students agreement to participate in the research might not be
freely given because of a belief that doing so will put them in good
favor with faculty(grades, recommendations , employment).
 However
 Prohibiting students from participating in research will be an over
protective behavior.
 A good approach is that faculty-investigators advertise for subjects
generally, rather than recruit students individually.

 Students participating in research for credits should be given

the fair alternative of either special projects, brief reports, or
brief quizzes for extra readings .
 The papers and the quizzes are no to be graded.
 Confidentiality
42
 Mental health ,sexual behavior, use of drugs…
EMPLOYEE’S PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH

 Similar to the student situation

 Influence of power.
 Absence of free will because of concerns
about grades (students) , job
advancements( employees).
 Confidentiality .
 Employees of biomedical companies are ideal
subjects for they understand the importance
of their participation
 Case study on the use of alcohol and the
aggressive behavior
43
DATA COLLECTION
 Data collection is a crucial factor in reaching a conclusion in an experiment.
 The importance of the tools or artifacts used.
 Identifying the relevant variables and noting the significance of each variable to reach the
experimental outcome.
 Collect data with as much precision as possible.
 The more and various are the steps, the more time and attention is required by the people conducting the
experiment.
 Learning period might yield unreliable data.
 Training and resources.
 What to do with the data collected during the learning period?
 Pressure to produce data within a specific time period to support a hypothesis.
 Overlooking some variables, or sloppiness
 Data selection, analysis and interpretation
 Moving from a set of scientific data to a conclusion.
 Deciding on which data points can be removed and which are critical points of the
experiment results.
 Considering each data point might lead to a question that is of more importance than the
original question.
 Smoking and lung cancer???
 Some people smoke and don’t get lung cancer.

 Data analysis might be influenced by:

 Expectations
44
 Desires

 Investment of time , effort, and ego.

 Publication pressure.
DATA PRESENTATION
 Oral presentation
 A scientist is invited to talk about his/her research and may present
some data that has not been published yet. The scientist is looking for
critical feed back and important input.
 By sharing the results an early stage, someone else might carry out
the work and obtain credit for it.
 Restrict the audience to people that you have previous personal
trust for.
 When the research is at a stage to be presented to the outside world, there
are some ethical issues:
 The degree to which one should be open as far as sharing data, experiment
details…etc
 Appropriately credit those who participated.
 Adequately present the results.
 A good way is to include the names of the people that contributed in the
research in the presentation slides.
 Data to present
 Which to present and which to hide ?
 Clear and accurate presentation of the findings.
 The data should be presented in a way that enables them in principle to be
reproduced by another experimenter
45
 DATA PRESENTATION
 Searching and identifying the uncontrolled variables that cause variation in
the experiment outcome.
 Peer reviewed does not guarantee that the assumptions are true.
 “The process of attempting to identify critical controls and analytical pitfalls is carried
out in a more formal and considered manner than it usually possible for oral
presentation.
 “A second function of the peer reviewed is to decide on the level of significance of the
findings in the manuscript in relation to the mission of the journal itself.”
 Concerns on the side of the scientist
 If the data and their interpretation are to pass the check from the reviewers prospective
of scientific accuracy and experimental design.
 The content is of sufficient to fit the profile of the journal to which it was
submitted.
 If a reviewers do not accurately understand the aspects of the paper. A
second, third or even a fourth reviewer is introduced.
 Conflict of interest.
 Do you feel comfortable reviewing paper X by author Y?
 Author may choose one or two people that they want to be the reviewers.
 Reviewer taking advantage by delaying a publication to get his paper
published first.
 Written presentation
 Oral presentation does not have the same approval as a peer reviewed
publication.
 Peer reviewed does not make the findings true.
 The underlying assumptions that go into the analysis of the data are shared by the
authors and the reviewers.
46
DATA PRESENTATION
 Post-publication ethical concerns
 Make some agents or results described in the paper available to the
scientific community.
 May be overwhelming for a small lab to respond to a large number of
requests.
 A possible solution might be the creation of a small repository with cost
constraints that supply the issues of interest to the scientific community.
 What about taking the results and working on the next stage that is
already being worked on in a small lab and beating them into the final result?
 Some researchers prefer to explore a problem in depth before any
publication or release of data ,but what about competition?
 What if there is contradictions in the findings and the original study?
 A publication to describe the differences between the current findings and
the original ones is most appropriate.
 An instrument might have caused the error.
 Presentation of scientific data and findings to society
 Presents serious ethical issues to the scientist.
 The pace of publication relative to clear social concern.
 “The findings are of importance to both the public and the
makers“.
 “ To carry out the study to the point where the highest degree of
accuracy have been achieved must be considered”
 Present the data in a way that presents the strengths and the
weaknesses of the study.
47
AUTHORSHIP
 Primary way for the researchers to communicate their ideas.
 Credit for one’s effort and contributions is allocated.
 A measure for the level of contribution to the scientific community.
 Intentional plagiarism is stealing.
 Assigning the responsibility of one’s findings, and the accuracy of the data
presented.
 More than one author , how will the responsibility and the contribution be
distributed ?
 “Authors are those who made a significant scientific contribution to the original,
new information that is the core of the paper”
 Should technicians, secretaries, programmers be considered authors ? Why ?
Or why not?
 Authorship is contribution and responsibility to the final product.
 Must be able to take public responsibility for the contents of the paper
 Why and how observations were made, and how conclusions follow from the data.
 Quantity and quality of publication
 Small bits of related data points.
 Same idea but different words.
 Credit
 Who should be the author and in what order should the authors be
listed?
 Concept or problem definition , experimentation or observation, and
calculations; and writing.
 Experimental design, data collection, data analysis, and
interpretation. 48
FUNDING
 Research costs money:
 Salaries , equipment, physical space, other services
 Fund sources
 Government, private non profit organizations, donations
from private individuals, funds from private industry
 Research grant and research contract
 Research grant proposal: “ Justification of the significance
of the question that the scientist proposes to test, the
description of the research strategies and techniques that
will be used to test the hypothesis, and the description of
the methods of data analysis that will be used”

49
FUNDING
 “ One key distinction between research grant and research contract is
responsibility of hypothesis generation.
 ” In the case of the research contract, the hypothesis to be
tested, as well as the line of the investigation to be perused in
terms of method, and strategy, is explicitly laid out by the
organization providing the funding.”
 Ethical issues:
 Same as peer reviewed articles
 Some of the reviewers might be working on the same topic or issue.
 Some research areas are preferred over others ( example AIDS related
research).
 “A scientist might be faced with an ethical dilemma of being
committed to the type of research being conducted but
disagrees to the motivation behind the research.”
 The use of research on marine mammals by the US Navy to be used
for military purposes.
 The is no set of rules to insure fairness since the assessment of
scientific merit is somewhat subjective, and relevance to program
goals of the funding entity.
50
ACADEMIC HONESTY
o Set of values and skills that promote personal integrity
and good practice in teaching, learning, and assessment

o Researchers are expected to comply with all internal

school deadlines: this is for their own benefit and may allow
time for revising work that is of doubtful authorship before the
submission of the final version

oResearchers are expected to review their own work

before submission to identify any passages, data, graphs,
photographs, computer programs, and so on that still require
acknowledgement
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

 Works of literature, art, Image or music must be

respected and are normally protected by national
and international law

52

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/EUR/1400-15354~Egyptian-Art-Nefertari-Posters.jpg
AUTHENTICITY
 An authentic piece of work is one that is based on
original ideas with the ideas and work of others
fully acknowledged
 ALL assignments MUST wholly and authentically
use a candidate’s own language and expression
 Where sources are used or referred to, whether in
the form of direct quotation or paraphrase, such
sources must be fully and appropriately
acknowledged

53
MALPRACTICE
 Behaviour that results in, or may result
in, the candidate or any other candidate
gaining an unfair advantage in one or
more assessment component
 Plagiarism
 Collusion
 Duplication of work
 Any other behaviour that gains an unfair
advantage for a candidate or that affects
the results of another candidate

54
PLAGIARISM
 The representation of the ideas or work of
another person as the candidate’s own
 When using the words of another person, use
quotation marks
 The source of the quotation (or paraphrased
text) must be clearly identified along with the
quotation and not reside in the bibliography
alone

55
COLLUSION
 Collusion is a secret cooperation or deceitful
agreement in order to deceive others
 Supporting malpractice by another candidate, as
in allowing one’s work to be copied or
submitted for assessment by another

56
DUPLICATION OF WORK
 The presentation of the same work for different
assessment components and/or diploma
requirements
 For example, if a candidate submits the same or a very
similar piece of work for the in-depth study in history
internal assessment and for an extended essay in history,
this would be viewed as malpractice
 Presentation of scientific data and findings to society
 Presents serious ethical issues to the scientist.
 The pace of publication relative to clear social concern.
 “The findings are of importance to both the public and

the makers“
 “ To carry out the study to the point where the highest

degree of accuracy have been achieved must be

considered”
 Present the data in a way that presents the strengths and
the weaknesses of the study. 57
COLLABORATION
 The final work must be produced independently, despite
the fact that it may be based on similar data
 A piece of work must be written in each candidate’s
own words
 For example, if two or more candidates have exactly
the same introduction to an assignment, the final
award committee will construe this as collusion

58
OTHER FORMS OF MALPRACTICE
 Taking unauthorized material into an examination room
 Misconduct during an examination, including any
attempt to disrupt the examination or distract another
candidate
 Exchanging, or in any way supporting, or attempting to
support, the passing on of information that is related to the
examination
 Copying the work of another candidate
 Failing to comply with the instructions of the
invigilator or other member of the school’s staff responsible
for the conduct of the examination
 Impersonating another candidate
 Stealing examination papers
 Disclosing or discussing the content of an
examination paper with a person outside the immediate
school community within 24 hours of the end of the
examination
 Fabricating data for an assignment 59
 SCIENCE: Vol 435|9, p.737 June
2005 COMMENTARY
Scientists behaving badly
“To protect the integrity of science, we must look beyond
falsification, fabrication and plagiarism, to a wider
range of questionable research practices”
Brian C. Martinson, Melissa S. Anderson and
Raymond de Vries.
► Research integrity is essential to ensure the
reliability of research results and to preserve
public support for research

60
BE CAREFUL!

Ifin doubt, always ask

questions…..…

61
INFORMATION SOURCES
 DHHS 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93; Federal Register/Vol 70, No. 94, 2005.
 “Fraud and the Role of Intensions” On Being A Scientist, Committee on the Conduct of Science, National
Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989, page 15, ISBN 0-309-04091-4
 Martinson, B., Anderson, M.,& de Vries, R., “Scientists behaving badly”. Journal of Nature 435, 737-738, June
2005.
 Office of Research Integrity: Case Summary-Pat J. Palmer. Federal Register: February 17, 2004, 69:31, 7488-
7489.
 Steneck, Nicholas H. (2004) ORI: Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research.
 American Psychological Association. (2011). APA style. Retrieved from
http://www.apastyle.org/learn/tutorials/basics-tutorial.aspx
 Bundy, C. (2004). Changing behaviour: Using motivational interviewing technique. The Journal of Royal
Society of Medicine, 97, 42-47.
 Center for Academic Honesty. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.academicintegrity.org
 Dix, D. L. (1824). Common things, conversations. [Electronic version]. New York, NY: Munroe & Frances.
 Harris, R. A. (2002). Using sources effectively: Strengthening your writing and avoiding plagiarism. Los
Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishers.
 Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953/1998). Sexual behavior in the
human female. [Electronic version]. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; Bloomington,IN: Indiana University Press.
Retrieved from: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-data.html#Findings
 Miller, J., & Garran, A. M. (2008). Racism in the United States: Implications for the helping professions.
Australia: Brooks/Cole.
 Mills, C. W. (1959). The promise. In The Sociological Imagination. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
 Princeton University. (2008). Academic Integrity. Retrieved from
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/integrity/08/styles
62
 PPTs are available @
https://www.slideshare.net/DrTrivedi1
 My email : librarian-hml@msubaroda.ac.in

63