Academic literature on the topic 'Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism'


 “You, who are on the road
 Must have a code that you can live by
 And so, become yourself
 Because the past is just a good bye”1
 
 The recent dismissal of charges of plagiarism made against no less than a Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines2 and subsequent retaliatory threats against protesting faculty of the College of Law of the University of the Philippines3 are matters of grave concern in a country where even the capital crime of plunder can be so blatantly disregarded. Not surprisingly, these misdemeanors share a similar etymology.
 
 Plagiarism comes from the “Latin plagiarius ‘kidnapper, seducer, plunderer,’ used in the sense of ‘literary thief’ by Martial, from plagium ‘kidnapping,’ from plaga ‘snare, net.’"4 According to the World Association of Medical Editors, “plagiarism is the use of others' published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source.”5 Just as ignorance of the law is not an excuse to violate it, the misconduct of plagiarism is not contingent on whether it was committed intentionally or unintentionally. Technical Plagiarism “occurs when one inadvertently fails to properly cite, credit, and/or integrate a source, be it text, computer code, graphic, audio, or video information into one's work … (and) can range in severity from an errant footnote, to incomplete citation information to "forgetting" to cite altogether.”6
 
 Five general types of plagiarism have been identified by Barnbaum:7 “cut and paste,” “word-switch,” “style,” “metaphor,” and “idea.” The first two are easy to understand, the first referring to literally lifting and applying words, phrases, sentences or paragraphs while the second involves substituting words or paraphrasing without attribution. But even following the flow of thought or reasoning style of another, substituting your own words sentence after sentence or paragraph after paragraph is “style plagiarism” and the same holds true when the metaphors or ideas of another are used without proper acknowledgement.7 The bottom line is that plagiarism gives the false impression that the words, ideas, composition or creation are those of the plagiarizer and not someone else’s, or misleads the recipient about the nature of the plagiarized material.5
 
 There is even “self-plagiarism,” which “refers to the practice of an author using portions of their previous writings on the same topic in another of their publications, without specifically citing it formally in quotes,”5 and may give the impression that the present work is new and original, when in fact it is not. According to Scanlon,8 while the whole issue of self-plagiarism “raises knotty conceptual, legal, ethical, and theoretical questions … we do and should give writers legal and ethical latitude for limited self-copying, although certainly not for egregious duplication.”
 
 Barring situational concessions for limited self- and technical plagiarism in exceptional contexts, plagiarism generally involves fabrication and falsification, which in science (as in law) are misconducts of the highest degree, regardless of the presence or absence of “malicious intent.” The Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors of The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) outlines the duties of editors in pursuing such misconduct: 9
 
 Pursuing misconduct
 
 Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct. This duty extends
 to both published and unpublished papers.
 Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible
 misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
 Editors should first seek a response from those accused. If they are not
 satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers
 or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body) to investigate.
 Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable (link to
 flowcharts).
 Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation
 is conducted; if this does not happen,
 Editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to
 the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.
 If this “onerous but important duty” applies to scientific misconduct, how much more to an institution whose very foundations are based on ethics and morality and whose raison d’etre is their upholding? Where resides this institution’s moral authority, if it cannot set the example it ought to?
 It is not right to take what is not yours without permission; that is thievery at best. It is even worse to shamelessly appropriate for yourself, that which belongs to others; that is looting and piracy. But the large-scale wanton stripping of intellectual (and other) properties and subsequent justification with legalese that violate the very roots of academic (and other) freedoms for present and future generations are tantamount to no less than pillage and plunder.

IntroductionBetween 0.02% and 0.04% of articles are retracted. We aim to: (a) describe the reasons for retraction of genetics articles and the time elapsed between the publication of an article and that of the retraction notice because of research misconduct (ie, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism); and (b) compare all these variables between retracted medical genetics (MG) and non-medical genetics (NMG) articles.MethodsAll retracted genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018 were retrieved from the Retraction Watch database. The reasons for retraction were fabrication/falsification, plagiarism, duplication, unreliability, and authorship issues. Articles subject to investigation by company/institution, journal, US Office for Research Integrity or third party were also retrieved.Results1582 retracted genetics articles (MG, n=690; NMG, n=892) were identified . Research misconduct and duplication were involved in 33% and 24% of retracted papers, respectively; 37% were subject to investigation. Only 0.8% of articles involved both fabrication/falsification and plagiarism. In this century the incidence of both plagiarism and duplication increased statistically significantly in genetics retracted articles; conversely, fabrication/falsification was significantly reduced. Time to retraction due to scientific misconduct was statistically significantly shorter in the period 2006–2018 compared with 1970–2000. Fabrication/falsification was statistically significantly more common in NMG (28%) than in MG (19%) articles. MG articles were significantly more frequently investigated (45%) than NMG articles (31%). Time to retraction of articles due to fabrication/falsification was significantly shorter for MG (mean 4.7 years) than for NMG (mean 6.4 years) articles; no differences for plagiarism (mean 2.3 years) were found. The USA (mainly NMG articles) and China (mainly MG articles) accounted for the largest number of retracted articles.ConclusionGenetics is a discipline with a high article retraction rate (estimated retraction rate 0.15%). Fabrication/falsification and plagiarism were almost mutually exclusive reasons for article retraction. Retracted MG articles were more frequently subject to investigation than NMG articles. Retracted articles due to fabrication/falsification required 2.0–2.8 times longer to retract than when plagiarism was involved.

The main principles of the publishing policy of the journal "Technical Electrodynamics" are considered, namely the observance of the principles of academic integrity. The concept of academic integrity, types of its violation - plagiarism, self-plagiarism, falsification, fabrication are explained. There are some legal documents developed in Ukraine on this issue, which must be followed by every scientist and scientific publications. References 10.

Purpose – Rising public scrutiny has? brought new demands for science communication. Especially, incidents of falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism have recently come to question academic integrity and legitimacy in Germany. Focussing on a prominent plagiarism case that revolved around the former Minister of Science and Education’s dissertation, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the communication strategies of the Düsseldorf University as it navigated the complex challenges of the crisis situation. Design/methodology/approach – The analysis is based on a rhetorical analysis of the public discourse of the University Düsseldorf in the context of the plagiarism crisis. Findings – The study finds that the university responded to the crisis by focussing on legitimating the legal and administrative process by which it evaluated Schavan’s dissertation and revoked the degree. In turn, this focus neglected restoring the threatened reputation of graduate education and of scholarship itself. Ultimately, the crisis communication of the university worked to undermine the premises and goals of science communication. Research limitations/implications – Future research should focus on case studies of crisis communication by academic and research organizations as well as on investigating the effects of crisis rhetoric on public trust in and on understanding of academic research. The study suggests that it is worthwhile for crisis and science communication scholars to work to develop distinct frameworks for science communication in crisis and crisis communication in science that account for the unique tensions and duality of needs in this arena. Originality/value – The study contributes to the understanding of the intersections between crisis communication and science communication. Especially, it underlines the importance of developing distinct frameworks for science communication in crisis and crisis communication in science that account for the unique tensions and duality of needs in this arena.

An area of concern in scientific research including medical research is misconduct or dishonesty like fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. This article focuses on the concepts of research misconduct with the objectives to discuss briefly on the extent of problem, various forms, possible reasons; methods of detection, and prevention. It is expected that this article will encourage the leaders of academic research groups to inform their students, future researchers and research associates about the ethical responsibilities of scientific research and publications, and to insure that, when they are given the responsibility for research and consequently submitting a paper, they are fully aware of the potential consequences to themselves and to their coauthors for violations of research ethical guidelines.Mediscope Vol. 4, No. 2: Jul 2017, Page 1-4

Research institutions are responsible for promoting research integrity and handling allegations of research misconduct. Due to various cultural and social contexts, institutional policies from different cultural backgrounds exhibit many differences, such as their primary concern and mechanisms for dealing with allegations of research misconduct. This comparative study analyses research misconduct policies from 21 Chinese and 22 European universities. The results show that definitions of research misconduct from all retrieved policies go beyond fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism but include different types of questionable research practices. Their procedures for handling research misconduct differ in, for example, confidentiality and disclosure of conflict of interest. Differences can also be found in their governance approaches (“bottom-up” versus “top-down”).

This article summarizes the major categories of ethical violations encountered during submission, review, and publication of scientific articles. We discuss data fabrication and falsification, plagiarism, redundant and duplicate publication, conflict of interest, authorship, animal and human welfare, and reviewer responsibility. In each section, pertinent historical background and citation of relevant regulations and statutes are provided. Furthermore, a specific case(s) derived from actual situations is(are) presented. These cases were chosen to highlight the complexities that investigators and journals must face when dealing with ethical issues. A series of discussion questions follow each case. It is our hope that by increasing education and awareness of ethical matters relevant to scientific investigation and publication, deviations from appropriate conduct will be reduced.

The objective of medical research is the quest for scientific truth, as well as the communication of new knowledge to the medical society through publication of novel results. Journals publishing these results rely on the trust that all persons involved (authors, peer reviewers, editors, and publishers) remain honest, following the rules and ethics of scientific integrity. Unfortunately, this is not always the case and a wide spectrum of pitfalls and misconducts may occur, ranging from less serious violations of ethical rules to most serious ones. In ascending order of severity, these include borderline questionable practices (HARKing [Hypothesizing After the Results are Known] and hyping), redundant publications, authorship misconducts, plagiarism, and all types of fraud (data falsification or fabrication). Awareness of all these fraudulent practices is essential to mitigate misconduct in academic writing.