To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism.
Journal articles on the topic 'Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Martyn, Christopher. "Fabrication, falsification and plagiarism." QJM: An International Journal of Medicine 96, no. 4 (2003): 243–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcg036.
Full text
2
Lapeña, Jose Florencio F. "Plagiarism and Plunder: Fabrication and Falsification." Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 25, no. 2 (2010): 4–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.32412/pjohns.v25i2.617.
Full textAbstract:

 “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‘snare, net.’"4 According to the World Association of Medical Editors, “plagiarism is the use of others' published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing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.
3
Dal-Ré, Rafael, and Carmen Ayuso. "Reasons for and time to retraction of genetics articles published between 1970 and 2018." Journal of Medical Genetics 56, no. 11 (2019): 734–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2019-106137.
Full textAbstract:
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.
4
Gorodzha, L. V. "PUBLISHING POLICY OF THE JOURNAL "TECHNICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS" – COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY." Tekhnichna Elektrodynamika 2021, no. 3 (2021): 83–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.15407/techned2021.03.083.
Full textAbstract:
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.
5
Zietman, Anthony L. "Falsification, Fabrication, and Plagiarism: The Unholy Trinity of Scientific Writing." International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 87, no. 2 (2013): 225–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.07.004.
Full text
6
Fähnrich, Birte, Claudia Janssen Danyi, and Howard Nothhaft. "The German plagiarism crisis." Journal of Communication Management 19, no. 1 (2015): 20–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jcom-11-2013-0081.
Full textAbstract:
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.
7
Laskar, MS. "Publishing articles in scientific journals: a concern for research misconduct or dishonesty (fabrication, falsification and plagiarism)." Mediscope 4, no. 2 (2017): 1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/mediscope.v4i2.34995.
Full textAbstract:
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
8
Li, Dan, and Gustaaf Cornelis. "Defining and Handling Research Misconduct: A Comparison Between Chinese and European Institutional Policies." Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 15, no. 4 (2020): 302–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1556264620927628.
Full textAbstract:
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”).
9
Benos, Dale J., Jorge Fabres, John Farmer, et al. "Ethics and scientific publication." Advances in Physiology Education 29, no. 2 (2005): 59–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00056.2004.
Full textAbstract:
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.
10
Lazarides, Miltos K., Evangelia Gougoudi, and Nikolaos Papanas. "Pitfalls and Misconducts in Medical Writing." International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds 18, no. 4 (2019): 350–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534734619870083.
Full textAbstract:
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.
11
Arzmi, Mohd Hafiz. "Scientific research misconducts : An overview." IIUM Journal of Orofacial and Health Sciences 2, no. 1 (2021): 1–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.31436/ijohs.v2i1.69.
Full textAbstract:
Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results (Anderson, 2013; Breen, 2016; Resnik, 2019). It can occur at many stages of the research process. These include during proposal preparation, data collection, analysis and publication (Amin et al., 2012). The previous studies reported that 2,047 articles were retracted from PubMed in May 2012, with 67% of the articles due to misconduct (Dal-Ré et al., 2020). Besides, the percentage of retracted papers in the year of 2012 were reported to increase by 10-fold compared to the total articles retracted in 1975 (Fang et al., 2012). According to Liu and Chen (2018), the data from Retraction Watch on the 31st July 2017 revealed that the US, China, Germany, Japan and India were the top six countries that had articles retracted.
12
Hofmann, Bjørn, Lone Bredahl Jensen, Mette Brandt Eriksen, Gert Helgesson, Niklas Juth, and Søren Holm. "Research Integrity Among PhD Students at the Faculty of Medicine: A Comparison of Three Scandinavian Universities." Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 15, no. 4 (2020): 320–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1556264620929230.
Full textAbstract:
This study investigates research integrity among PhD students in health sciences at three universities in Scandinavia (Stockholm, Oslo, Odense). A questionnaire with questions on knowledge, attitudes, experiences, and behavior was distributed to PhD students and obtained a response rate of 77.7%. About 10% of the respondents agreed that research misconduct strictly defined (such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, FFP) is common in their area of research, while slightly more agreed that other forms of misconduct is common. A nonnegligible segment of the respondents was willing to fabricate, falsify, or omit contradicting data if they believe that they are right in their overall conclusions. Up to one third reported to have added one or more authors unmerited. Results showed a negative correlation between “good attitudes” and self-reported misconduct and a positive correlation between how frequent respondents thought that misconduct occurs and whether they reported misconduct themselves. This reveals that existing educational and research systems partly fail to foster research integrity.
13
Zuckerman, Harriet. "Is “the time ripe” for quantitative research on misconduct in science?" Quantitative Science Studies 1, no. 3 (2020): 945–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00065.
Full textAbstract:
Misconduct in science is a timely and substantively important problem in the social study of science. But in the absence of comprehensive and reliable data needed for analysis, formidable obstacles stand in the way of its being studied quantitively. Accessible databases, including government data, are flawed, while undertaking new data collection presents its own problems. First, little is known about biases in official government reports. Second, official reports exclude classes of malfeasance other than fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism of evidence (FFP). Third, while drawing on official data is expedient, available official information is thin; it tells little about miscreants and fails to identify potential causes of their actions and the environments in which misconduct occurred. Fourth, it also fails the test of permitting estimates to be made of populations at risk, making it impossible to calculate incidence. A healthy dose of skepticism is in order in evaluating both the findings of current quantitative studies and of proposals for remediation.
14
Ababneh, Rawan A., Karem H. Alzoubi, and Mera A. Ababneh. "Evaluation of Pharmacy Students’ Knowledge and Perception of Scientific Integrity." Education Sciences 10, no. 2 (2020): 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci10020041.
Full textAbstract:
Scientific integrity, proper research conduct and avoiding research misconduct including plagiarism, fabrication and falsification, are all essential to all disciplines. Since research experience is a recommended skill to gain during undergraduate education, undergraduate students need to be aware of research misconduct in order to avoid it. This study was carried out to determine the level of knowledge and awareness regarding research misconduct, and the independent factors that might contribute to attitudes towards research misconduct. In this cross-sectional study, a questionnaire was self-filled by pharmacy undergraduate students about their knowledge of practices in research misconduct. Among the respondents (n=800), 79.12% had poor knowledge, whereas 20.88% had good knowledge about research misconduct and research ethics. Furthermore, only 9% indicated having previous training in research conduct/misconduct, whereas 36.5% had previous training in research ethics. In conclusion, this study reflects insufficient knowledge and awareness about research misconduct concepts and their main terminologies among undergraduate pharmacy students, which emphasizes the importance of implanting proper training programs/courses on research ethics during students’ academic years.
15
Gollogly, Laragh, and Hooman Momen. "Ethical dilemmas in scientific publication: pitfalls and solutions for editors." Revista de Saúde Pública 40, spe (2006): 24–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0034-89102006000400004.
Full textAbstract:
Editors of scientific journals need to be conversant with the mechanisms by which scientific misconduct is amplified by publication practices. This paper provides definitions, ways to document the extent of the problem, and examples of editorial attempts to counter fraud. Fabrication, falsification, duplication, ghost authorship, gift authorship, lack of ethics approval, non-disclosure, 'salami' publication, conflicts of interest, auto-citation, duplicate submission, duplicate publications, and plagiarism are common problems. Editorial misconduct includes failure to observe due process, undue delay in reaching decisions and communicating these to authors, inappropriate review procedures, and confounding a journal's content with its advertising or promotional potential. Editors also can be admonished by their peers for failure to investigate suspected misconduct, failure to retract when indicated, and failure to abide voluntarily by the six main sources of relevant international guidelines on research, its reporting and editorial practice. Editors are in a good position to promulgate reasonable standards of practice, and can start by using consensus guidelines on publication ethics to state explicitly how their journals function. Reviewers, editors, authors and readers all then have a better chance to understand, and abide by, the rules of publishing.
16
Vuckovic-Dekic, Ljiljana. "Fraud in biomedical literature." Srpski arhiv za celokupno lekarstvo 134, Suppl. 1 (2006): 50–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/sarh06s1050v.
Full textAbstract:
The basic ethical principles in science are internationally recognised in all disciplines of science. The first among these is honesty - both towards oneself and towards others. The betrayal of this principle can be seen as deviant behaviour, which may result in the most serious violation of the high ethical standards of science - scientific fraud. Fraudulent behaviour in biomedical sciences is particularly damaging, since all diagnostic and treatment decisions are based on what is published in medical literature. The betrayers of science undermine, to a great extent, the public trust in science, and may destroy the confidence scientists have in each other as well, which is a grave danger to science itself. In this article, several high profile cases of scientific fraud - involving falsification, fabrication of data, and plagiarism - are described. The damaging effect they had on both science and the scientific community led to the codification of the concept of Good Scientific Practice (GSP) - an international quality standard for designing, conducting, recording, and reporting research. The concept of GSP sets internationally valid benchmarks for quality assurance, and also provides safeguards against scientific dishonesty and fraud.
17
Mondragón Barrios, Liliana, José Alberto Jiménez Tapia, Denize Maday Meza Mercado, and Liz Sosa Mora. "Regulation and self-regulation of ethical practices in scientific publication." Salud mental 40, no. 5 (2017): 227–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.17711/sm.0185-3325.2017.029.
Full textAbstract:
Introduction. The process of publication is influenced by a pressure on researchers to demonstrate their competence and productivity by publishing large numbers of articles in indexed journals. But there is a great deal of ignorance regarding the ethical obligations in scientific publication; worse, ethical considerations are often seen as mere formalities in the process of publishing an article. Objective. This article discusses the ethical practices related to the publication of a scientific article. It encompasses those defined by forms of external regulation and those that might be identified as forms of self-regulation, and it argues for the greater effectiveness of the latter in scientific publication. Method. We performed a literature review and a critical analysis of the information. Results. There are negative factors that range from plagiarism and the duplication of articles to the fabrication and falsification of data. Researchers look for convenient solutions, taking refuge in practices condoned, paradoxically, by the very scientific community that condemns them. Rather than avoiding these forms of misconduct, the scientific community even justifies them at times, which means that the practices continue. Discussion and conclusion. Self-regulation in scientific publication is a preferable goal: it allows participants in the process to assume their obligations freely and with a greater sense of responsibility.
18
Brzeziński, Jerzy Marian. "Czy (i komu) potrzebne są czasopisma naukowe? Kontekst nauk społecznych." Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 83, no. 2 (2021): 9–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/rpeis.2021.83.2.2.
Full textAbstract:
Badacze zajmują się: (1) prowadzeniem badań naukowych oraz (2) upowszechnianiem ich wyników. Badacze zatrudnieni na uniwersytetach podejmują jeszcze dodatkową aktywność – (3) przekazują intersubiektywną wiedzę naukową (sprawdzone teorie i metody pozyskiwania tej wiedzy) swoim studentom i młodym badaczom, przygotowującym pod ich kierunkiem dysertacje doktorskie. Głównym kanałem przekazywania naukowych treści (wypełnianie przez badaczy obowiązku poddawania społecznej kontroli wytworów ich umysłów) są czasopisma naukowe. Tak jest w matematyce, fizyce, chemii, biologii, naukach medycznych czy w naukach inżynierskich. Tak też – w interesujących autora naukach społecznych – jest w psychologii. Z kolei w naukach humanistycznych (filozofia, historia, literaturoznawstwo itp.) duże znaczenie przypisuje się monografiom naukowym.
 Autor rozpatruje problem publikowania osiągnięć naukowych badaczy z obszaru nauk społecznych (ale jego rozważania mają też znaczenie dla klasycznych nauk humanistycznych) w czasopismach i w monografiach na tle dokonanych w Polsce – jego zdaniem - nieudolnie i bez należytego poszanowania tradycji, reform w obszarze nauki i szkolnictwa wyższego (tzw. ustawa Jarosława Gowina, ministra ds. nauki szkolnictwa wyższego, autoryzującego krytykowaną ustawę).
 Autor krytycznie odnosi się do negatywnych konsekwencji społecznych – zwłaszcza dla rozwoju nauki i studiów wyższych w Polsce. Autor krytycznie odnosi się do: (1) uznaniowego (bez racjonalnego uzasadnienia!) wyróżnienia listy wydawców książek naukowych, (2) stworzenia, bez należytej wnikliwości, listy czasopism. Te dwa wykazy stanowią podstawę do przeprowadzanych ewaluacji dorobku naukowego instytucji naukowych i pojedynczych badaczy. To nie mogą być rzetelne oceny.
 Zdaniem autora przeliczanie publikacji na punkty prowadzi do zjawiska depersonalizacji ocen osiągnięć naukowych (w wymiarze indywidualnym i instytucjonalnym). Prowadzi też do udziału, zwłaszcza młodych badaczy, w „wyścigu szczurów” (formuła: Publish or Perish) oraz rodzi zjawiska patologiczne w nauce: ghostwriting, guest authorship, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, falsification of data, fabrication of data, publikowanie w predatory journals, publication bias. Środkiem zaradczym może być tylko odejście od „punktowania” publikacji i dokonywanie ocen metodą peer review.
19
Vasanthi, Hannah R., Subhendu Mukherjee, and Dipak K. Das. "Retraction Notice To: Potential Health Benefits of Broccoli-A Chemico-Biological Overview." Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry 21, no. 13 (2021): 1796. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/138955752113210607115023.
Full textAbstract:
The article “Potential health benefits of broccoli- a chemico-biological overview, published in Mini-Rev Med Chem 2009 Jun;9(6):749-59. By Hannah R. Vasanthi, Subhendu Mukherjee and Dipak K. Das” has been retracted by the Editorial office of the journal Mini-reviews in Medicinal Chemistry, as the text in this review article are from sources which have been retracted or under investigation on the basis of data fabrication and falsification, authorship misconduct, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, text recycling/self-plagiarism, and unresolved concerns about data integrity and research conduct. The authors were informed of this complaint and were requested to give justification on the matter in their defense [1]. Some sources that have been retracted are as follows: 1) Agarwal et al. Dynamic Action of Carotenoids in Cardioprotection and Maintenance of Cardiac Health, Molecules 2012, 17, 4755-4769. http: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24896014/ 2) Nagendran Balasundram, KalyanaSundram, SamirSamman. Phenolic compounds in plants and agri-industrial byproducts: Antioxidant activity, occurrence, and potential uses. Food Chemistry 2006, 99(1), 191-203. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308814605006242 Bentham Science apologizes to the readers of the journal for any inconvenience this may have caused. The Bentham Editorial Policy on Article Retraction can be found at https://benthamscience.com/editorial-policies-main.php. REFERENCES [1] Hannah R Vasanthi, Subhendu Mukherjee, Dipak K Das. Potential health benefits of broccoli- a chemico-biological overview. Mini Rev Med Chem., 2009, 9(6), 749-759. doi: 10.2174/138955709788452685. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19519500/ Bentham Science Disclaimer: It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to this journal have not been published and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. Furthermore, any data, illustration, structure or table that has been published elsewhere must be reported, and copyright permission for reproduction must be obtained. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden, and by submitting the article for publication the authors agree that the publishers have the legal right to take appropriate action against the authors, if plagiarism or fabricated information is discovered. By submitting a manuscript, the authors agree that the copyright of their article is transferred to the publishers if and when the article is accepted for publication.
20
Dal-Ré, Rafael, Lex M. Bouter, Pim Cuijpers, Christian Gluud, and Søren Holm. "Should research misconduct be criminalized?" Research Ethics 16, no. 1-2 (2020): 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1747016119898400.
Full textAbstract:
For more than 25 years, research misconduct (research fraud) is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP)—although other research misbehaviors have been also added in codes of conduct and legislations. A critical issue in deciding whether research misconduct should be subject to criminal law is its definition, because not all behaviors labeled as research misconduct qualifies as serious crime. But assuming that all FFP is fraud and all non-FFP not is far from obvious. In addition, new research misbehaviors have recently been described, such as prolific authorship, and fake peer review, or boosted such as duplication of images. The scientific community has been largely successful in keeping criminal law away from the cases of research misconduct. Alleged cases of research misconduct are usually looked into by committees of scientists usually from the same institution or university of the suspected offender in a process that often lacks transparency. Few countries have or plan to introduce independent bodies to address research misconduct; so for the coming years, most universities and research institutions will continue handling alleged research misconduct cases with their own procedures. A global operationalization of research misconduct with clear boundaries and clear criteria would be helpful. There is room for improvement in reaching global clarity on what research misconduct is, how allegations should be handled, and which sanctions are appropriate.
21
Iwamoto, Jun, Tsuyoshi Takeda, and Yoshihiro Sato. "Retracted Note: Effects of Vitamin K2 on Osteoporosis." Current Pharmaceutical Design 27, no. 19 (2021): 2325. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/138161282719210608092930.
Full textAbstract:
The article entitled “Effects of Vitamin K2 on Osteoporosis, published in Curr Pharm Des 2004; 10(21): 2557-76, by Iwamoto J, Takeda T and Sato Y.” has been retracted by the Editorial office of the journal Current Pharmaceutical Design, as the text, data and some figures used/referred in this review article are from sources which have been retracted or under investigation on the basis of data fabrication and falsification, authorship misconduct, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, text recycling/self-plagiarism, and unresolved concerns about data integrity and research conduct. The authors were informed of this complaint and were requested to give justification on the matter in their defense. However, no reply was received from their side in this regard. Some sources that have been retracted are as follows: 1. Iwamoto J, Takeda T, Ichimura S. Combined treatment with vitamin K2 and bisphosphonate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Yonsei Med J 2003; 44: 751-6. Available at: https://eymj.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3349/ymj.2019.60.1.115. 2. Sato Y, Honda Y, Kuno H, Oizumi K. Menatetrenone ameliorates osteopenia in disuse-affected limbs of vitamin D- and K-deficient stroke patients. Bone 1998; 23: 291-6. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8756328298001082. 3. Sato Y, Honda Y, Kaji M, Asoh T, Hosokawa K, Kondo I, et al. Amelioration of osteoporosis by menatetrenone in elderly female Parkinson's disease patients with vitamin D deficiency. Bone 2002; 31: 114-8. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 12110423/. Bentham Science apologizes to its readers for any inconvenience this may have caused. The Bentham Editorial Policy on Article Retraction can be found at https://benthamscience.com/editorial-policies-main.php. Bentham Science Disclaimer: It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to this journal have not been published and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. Furthermore, any data, illustration, structure or table that has been published elsewhere must be reported, and copyright permission for reproduction must be obtained. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden, and by submitting the article for publication the authors agree that the publishers have the legal right to take appropriate action against the authors, if plagiarism or fabricated information is discovered. By submitting a manuscript, the authors agree that the copyright of their article is transferred to the publishers if and when the article is accepted for publication.
22
Yesman, Iryna, and Victoria Ushmarova. "PEDAGOGICAL CONDITIONS OF FORMING CULTURE OF ACADEMIC HONOR OF JUNIOR SCHOOLCHILDREN IN THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS OF PRIMARY SCHOOL." Psychological and Pedagogical Problems of Modern School, no. 1(5) (May 27, 2021): 86–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.31499/2706-6258.1(5).2021.235189.
Full textAbstract:
The article clarifies the essence of the concept “culture of academic honor” basing on the analysis of the source base research. The author formulated the definition of the leading category of research. Three base components of the culture of academic honor of junior schoolchildren are singled out: cognitive, active and moral, which are basic for a diagnosing the level of the formation of the culture of academic honor. The author revealed the main types of violation of culture of academic honor: academic plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, writing off, deception, bribery, non-objective grading. Theoretically explained pedagogical conditions of creating the culture of academic honor of junior schoolchildren in educational process of the primary school are: expansion of language and literature lessons with special exercises and exercises with writing a retelling, directed on creating of rephrasing text skills through the writing a retelling. It promotes creating the culture of academic honor in junior schoolchildren, upbringing morals of the culture of academic honor in junior schoolchildren (on mastery the system of moral concept of the academic honor; development of pupils’ complex of personal characteristics, which help academic honor with pupils’ gaining experience of qualitative, independent and creative educational environment). It makes the culture of academic honor in primary school (making and supporting virtuous academic environment in universities, accepting the academic honor as the only one model of education and group behavior for all pupils; virtuous activity of pedagogue that will demonstrate model of the moral behavior on himself). The results of the experimental review of the effectivity of pedagogical conditions of forming the culture of academic honor in junior schoolchildren in educational process of primary school, conducted in 2019/2020 school year based on Kharkiv gymnasium № 169 with pupils of the 4-th grade are generalized and presented.
 Keywords: academic honor, culture of academic honor, pedagogical condition, educational process, primary school, junior schoolchildren, writing retelling, value of academic honor, honourable academic environment.
23
Ogundele, SO, YA Kuyinu, MA Salisu, and O. Odusanya. "Knowledge of Research and Publication Ethics in a Nigerian Medical College." Annals of Health Research 5, no. 2 (2019): 165–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.30442/ahr.0502-18-48.
Full textAbstract:
Background: In academia, the aphorism 'publish or perish' is commonly used. The pressure to publish academic papers can sometimes lead researchers to engage in unethical practices in the conduct, reporting or publishing of their research works.
 Objective: To assess the awareness and practices of ethical issues in the conduct, reporting, and publishing of research among academics.
 Methods: The study was a descriptive, cross-sectional survey of the academic staff of a Nigerian medical college. A structured questionnaire was used to collect relevant information about publishing experience and observation of practices considered to be acts of research misconduct. 
 Results: A total of 94 out of 108 academics responded to the questionnaires giving a response rate of 87%. The commonest act of research misconduct reported by the respondents was plagiarism with an incidence rate of 25%. The incidence rates for awareness of data fabrication and falsification were 22% and 21% respectively. The proportions of respondents who were aware of gift and ghost authorship were 63% and 20% respectively. Only 41% of the respondents could recall all the criteria for authorship of an academic paper while 20% could not recollect any of the criteria.
 Conclusion: Research misconduct and unethical publication practices are common observations among the respondents in this survey. It is recommended that researchers should familiarize themselves with the various ethical guidelines and requirements for authorship and agree on the sequence of the names of authors in the by-line of the proposed publication at the start of project work.
24
Omidi, Ameneh. "Extrapulmonary Manifestations of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Narrative Review." Journal of Arak University Medical Sciences 23, no. 5 (2020): 604–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.32598/jams.23.cov.6186.1.
Full textAbstract:
Background and Aim: Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are known to cause respiratory tract infections in humans. SARS-CoV-2 is a new type of this family initiated in late 2019 and its related disease is known as Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Common symptoms of COVID-19 include fever, dry cough, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia and shortness of breath. Methods & Materials: In This narrative review a literature search was conducted in scientific databases including Google Scholar and PubMed to find studies published from December 2019 to May 10 2020 on the role the extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. Ethical Considerations: Ethical issues (including plagiarism, misconduct, data fabrication, falsification, double publication or submission, redundancy) have been completely observed by the authors. Results: In addition to respiratory symptoms, involvement of various organs such as gastrointestinal tract, nervous system, skin, olfactory system, cardiovascular system, liver, kidney, and eyes was also reported. Extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19 included anosmia, ageusia, skin rash, chickenpox-like blisters, acute cardiac failure with increased troponin levels, kidney inflammation and edema, common gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g. diarrhea, nausea and vomiting), elevated liver enzyme levels, neurological disorders (e.g. stroke), nonspecific symptoms (e.g. headache and dizziness), and decreased consciousness level. Conclusion: The hypothetical mechanisms of various organ involvements during COVID-19 include immune-mediated inflammation such as cytokine storm, respiratory dysfunction, hypoxemia, cellular damage, or combination of these mechanisms. Further studies should be conducted on the causes of various COVID-19-induced damages to determine the exact relationship between the pathogenesis, prognosis and severity of the disease.
25
To, W. M., and Billy T. W. Yu. "Rise in higher education researchers and academic publications." Emerald Open Research 2 (January 30, 2020): 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.35241/emeraldopenres.13437.1.
Full textAbstract:
Background: How many higher education researchers are there in the world? How many academic articles are published by researchers each year? This paper aims to answer these two questions by tracking the number of higher education teachers and the number of publications over the past four decades. Methods: We collected data on the number of higher education institutions and researchers from the United Nations, the World Bank, and the U.S., China, and U.K. governments (three countries with the largest number of academic publications in recent years). We used Scopus to obtain the number of publications per year. The growth of higher education researchers and academic publications were characterized using 4-parameter logistic models. Results: The number of higher education teachers-cum-researchers increased from 4 million in 1980 to 13.1 million in 2018 worldwide. Concurrently, the number of academic publications increased from 0.65 million in 1980 to 3.16 million in 2018 based on data from Scopus. At the country level, the number of academic publications from the U.S. increased from 0.15 million in 1980 to 0.70 million in 2018, while that from China increased by almost 1,000 times from 629 in 1980 to 0.60 million in 2018. Conclusions: The number of higher education researchers would reach 13.6 million and they would publish 3.21 million academic articles in 2020, imposing enormous pressure to publishers, peer-reviewers, and people who want to understand emerging scientific development. Additionally, not all academic publications are easily assessable because most articles are behind pay-walls. In addition, unethical research practices including falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, slicing publication, publication in a predatory journal or conference, etc. may hinder scientific and human development.
26
Polenakovic, Momir, and Zoran Gucev. "Publishing Integrity and Good Practices in Editing in Biomedicine." PRILOZI 35, no. 3 (2014): 11–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/prilozi-2015-0002.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts (MASA), held a scientific workshop for journal editors in biomedicine: “Publishing integrity and good practices in editing in biomedicine” on April 25, 2014 in MASA, Skopje. The meeting looked into old problems and new situations in editing and publishing, with emphasis on the situation in developing countries.This global knowledge-based society is founded on the results obtained from scientific research. The data from basic research in developed countries contribute in a quite substantial manner to the newly added economic value. One of the main reasons for underdevelopment in South Eastern Europe (SEE) is certainly a low or non-existent contribution of scientific research in the newly added economic value. This has largely to do with the perception of the political elites which simply lack the insight on the crucial importance of science in development. In the long term this leads to societies in which there are distortions in the understanding of the most basic values.Academic publishing has experienced tremendous growth: so far there are at least 50 million scientific articles. Interestingly, publishing in developing countries has experienced a rate of growth higher than in developed countries. However, this is not the case with the Balkan countries.The meeting looked at some old and some newly emerging problems in editing and publishing.First, the high cost for universities and researchers to purchase journals adversely affects both publishing and editing. In developing countries the high cost of purchasing scientific literature is an almost insurmountable problem in spite of the fact that some publishing companies offer discounted fees. Open access journals in South Eastern European (SEE) countries are hardly achievable as this also incurs costs that have to be covered in some way or other.The peer review process has the fundamental difficulty that reviewers are in the situation of a Procrustean bed, tending to accept reports which support the reviewer's concepts of thinking and, like Procrustes, cutting everything else out. Authorship is often a contentious issue, as undeserved authors appear on the list of authors.Some principles are now a norm in academic publishing. This applies to the declaration of a conflict of interest, the consent of the patient and the approval of the Ethical Board of the institution.This global informational technological revolution has, unfortunately, led to largely widespread and increasingly sophisticated deviations: plagiarism, data fabrication and data falsification as forms of scientific misconduct. Those events are now more widespread than in the past. Luckily new tools to track them are much better than previously. The race for perfect publishing integrity and for the best good practices in editing in biomedicine is on. New and old challenges will be met. The benevolent and caring society, educated professionals and an enlightened public remain essential preconditions. The wealth of nations depends on R&D and consequently on academic publishing.
27
Yakushev, A. N., and S. A. Komarov. "Mass Falsification of the Results of the Evaluation of THeses Programs." Russian Journal of Legal Studies 3, no. 4 (2016): 25–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.17816/rjls18177.
Full textAbstract:
The article is devoted to the development and application of programs of anti-plagiarism. Installed, they are based on norms of regulations contradicting the Federal legislation; evaluation criteria use of the original work are not words or phrase, and para- graph. Records of the programs of anti-plagiarism is a mass-Wai falsification of the results of the evaluation of the use of the original works. The structure of the article: relevance of the topic, the legal basis for the use of the work, citation, plagiarism, «plagiarism» in the theses, reports, programs of anti-plagiarism on the subject of the originality of scientific works.
28
Reider, Bruce. "Fabrication, Falsification et al." American Journal of Sports Medicine 38, no. 3 (2010): 445–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0363546510363908.
Full text
29
Avdeeva, N. V., and I. V. Sus’. "«Antiplagiat. RSL» - Verification System of Text Authorship." Bibliotekovedenie [Library and Information Science (Russia)], no. 4 (August 28, 2014): 41–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.25281/0869-608x-2014-0-4-41-44.
Full textAbstract:
For handling the problem of falsification in science and combating the intellectual plagiarism there is required verification system of document texts originality. The «Antiplagiat.RSL» system can serve as an example of such a system, for it is an independent expertise tool, performing comparative semantic and stylistic assessment of textual matching content. Expert Certificate on the Originality of Text, issued by the Russian State Library, is an official document, containing information on presence/absence of plagiarism in scientific texts.
30
Hollyfield, Joe G. "Manuscript fabrication, image manipulation and plagiarism." Experimental Eye Research 94, no. 1 (2012): 1–2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2011.10.009.
Full text
31
Dorozhko, Anastasia. "THE STATE AND PROBLEMS OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND THE REASONS OF ITS BREACH." Academic Notes Series Pedagogical Science 1, no. 194 (2021): 204–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.36550/2415-7988-2021-1-194-204-208.
Full textAbstract:
The article clarifies the current state of academic integrity, gives a list of its basic principles, the reasons of their breach, suggests the ways to overcome breaches, and also it notes the plagiarism essence, and defines the categories of scientific plagiarism. The paper considers academic integrity as the commitment of an academic community to six fundamental values such as honesty, trust, fairness, justice, respect, responsibility, courage. The reasons why the basic principles of academic integrity are violated are considered. The violations include copying, forgery, involvement in the commission of academic dishonesty, plagiarism, deception. In the paper the term «plagiarism» means the theft of scientific ideas, misappropriation of another author's research results or text usage without correctly indicating sources of borrowings. It is noted that plagiarism is illegal behaviour in the scientific environment. The forms of illegal behaviour include scientific plagiarism, scientific information falsification, and production of pseudo-scientific products. The category of scientific plagiarism is analyzed in the category of obvious and non-obvious scientific plagiarism, when an expert’s participation for the problem consideration is necessary. One of the simplest and most effective mechanisms is offered, it is teaching students online self-checking of manuscript texts for originality. The article provides the examples of effective services for online self-checking of manuscript texts for originality. The most common online programs for self-checking of manuscript texts are presented. The paper emphasizes that academic integrity development for students should begin as early as possible. The promising ways of academic integrity development have been identified. It is argued that the systematic, explanatory, preventive work throughout the period of students’ scientific activity in university should be carried out. In conclusion it is proved that academic integrity development is necessary for all students
32
Durkalevych, Viktoriya. "Quasi-scientific second hand of contemporary literary studies: the strategies of falsification and plagiarism." Vìsnik Marìupolʹsʹkogo deržavnogo unìversitetu. Serìâ: Fìlologìâ 12, no. 21 (2019): 28–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.34079/2226-3055-2019-12-21-28-37.
Full textAbstract:
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.
33
Resnik, David B. "Data Fabrication and Falsification and Empiricist Philosophy of Science." Science and Engineering Ethics 20, no. 2 (2013): 423–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9466-z.
Full text
34
Chambers, LM, CM Michener, and T. Falcone. "Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology." BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 126, no. 9 (2019): 1134–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15689.
Full text
35
Li, Wentao, and Ben W. Mol. "Re: Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology." BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 126, no. 10 (2019): 1289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15829.
Full text
36
Cosgrove, John, Barbara Norelli, and Elizabeth Putnam. "Setting the Record Straight: How Online Database Providers Are Handling Plagiarism and Fabrication Issues." College & Research Libraries 66, no. 2 (2005): 136–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.66.2.136.
Full textAbstract:
As a result of several well-publicized media scandals involving plagiarism and outright fabrication, the authors question whether online database providers are appending or linking corrections to original stories. Unfortunately, in most cases, the answer is no. In this study of how some major database providers (EBSCO, LexisNexis, ProQuest, and Thomson/Gale) handle highly publicized cases of plagiarism and fabrication, only LexisNexis was found to append corrections, and even then inconsistently. Databases are not alone in this oversight; even the Web sites of the publications involved were unreliable in their treatment of corrections of their own articles.
37
Bourion, Christian. "La fabrication d'un leurre cognitif à l'aide de falsification successive du sens." Revue internationale de psychosociologie XVI, no. 39 (2010): 69. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/rips.039.0069.
Full text
38
Baillie, J. "On Writing (5): Fabrication, Falsification and Plagerism in Medical Research and Publishing." Endoscopy 36, no. 11 (2004): 1008–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-826010.
Full text
39
Klein, A. A. "WhatAnaesthesiais doing to combat scientific misconduct and investigate data fabrication and falsification." Anaesthesia 72, no. 1 (2016): 3–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/anae.13731.
Full text
40
Devine, Eric G., Alyssa M. Pingitore, Kathryn N. Margiotta, et al. "Frequency of concealment, fabrication and falsification of study data by deceptive subjects." Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications 21 (March 2021): 100713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2021.100713.
Full text
41
Zigmond, Michael J., and Beth A. Fischer. "Beyond fabrication and plagiarism: The little murders of everyday science." Science and Engineering Ethics 8, no. 2 (2002): 229–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0024-3.
Full text
42
Payne, G. Tyge, and R. Duane Ireland. "It Takes a Village." Family Business Review 28, no. 2 (2015): 96–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894486515574193.
Full textAbstract:
This editorial explores key issues regarding ethics in family business research – particularly that surrounding the evaluation and publication process – and advocates creating a stronger and more knowledgeable community of scholars to overcome the many challenges facing responsible research. Rather than only discussing the various types of ethical problems in research such as plagiarism, unprincipled data manipulation, and falsification of data, we expand the conversation to include the role the scholarly community – including researchers, reviewers, editors, and institutional leaders – plays in dealing with ongoing ethical concerns in scholarly publishing. We offer a few pragmatic suggestions for improving some processes, but primarily make a broad call for building a stronger (global) community of family business researchers that supports and promotes ethical conduct in publishing research through increased dialogue and interaction.
43
Chambers, Laura M., Chad M. Michener, and Tommaso Falcone. "Authors’ reply re: Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology." BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 126, no. 10 (2019): 1289–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15828.
Full text
44
Djiraro Mangue, Célestine Laure, and Jean Gonondo. "Academic Culture and Talent Cultivation." Journal of Comparative & International Higher Education 13, no. 1 (2021): 133–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.32674/jcihe.v13i1.3133.
Full textAbstract:
This study aims at introducing and discussing the concept of ‘academic culture,’ the Chinese concept of ‘talent cultivation’, and the influence of ‘academic culture’ in the process of ‘talent cultivation’in the Chinese context. It uses the analysis of some observation notes and relevant literature that examines the issue of ‘academic culture’. The Chinese ‘talent cultivation’is fascinating and seems useful due to the significant development of the higher education system with the increasing internationalization and the innovation of scholars. However, some challenges such as academic scandals and academic corruption, the falsification and plagiarism of academic achievements, the phenomenon of money-worshipping, the vulgar pragmatism, the utilitarianism, the academic creation of falsehood, the culture of guanxi, the lack of talent competition, and the lack of competition with consciousness remain actual. It appears that the cultivation of creative talent and innovative research involves the enhancement of the whole academic organization and environment.
45
Manseau, Hélène. "La définition ou la fabrication de l’abus sexuel d’enfants au Québec." I. Le social « sous influence » : insécurité, précarité et réponses institutionnelles, no. 19 (December 3, 2015): 41–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1034239ar.
Full textAbstract:
L’étiquette d’abus sexuel d’enfants à caractère incestueux est de plus en plus utilisée au Québec. Une étude sur le terrain portant précisément sur la définition de ce « nouveau problème social » permet d’identifier des facteurs qui, tout en situant sa mise en forme, nous amènent à poser la question de la fabrication de cet objet. À un niveau officiel, une falsification du problème semble se dessiner à travers son processus même de désignation, qui est la résultante de rapports complexes entre la structure d’intervention actuelle et les intervenants. En filigrane apparaît une idéologie de protection de la jeunesse qui, en plus de légitimer les pratiques actuelles, a fait germer tout un mouvement social et institutionnel qui ne nous semble pas servir principalement les intérêts des jeunes victimes, qu’elles soient considérées comme incestuées ou pauvres.
46
Mahmood, KhalidRaja. "Plagiarism, copyright violation, duplication, fabrication, false statements, breach of research and publication ethics." Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology 75, no. 2 (2009): 182. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0378-6323.48668.
Full text
47
Wager, Elizabeth. "Publication Ethics: Whose Problem is It?" PRILOZI 35, no. 3 (2014): 23–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/prilozi-2015-0004.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractDiscussions about publication ethics often focus on misconduct by authors such as data fabrication and plagiarism. However, the roles of editors, publishers, academic societies, and research institutions should not be ignored. All these players have ethical responsibilities and should carefully consider the effects of their policies and actions. If people believe that publication ethics is 'somebody else's problem', little progress will be made and problems will persist.
48
Kemper, Christoph J., and Natalja Menold. "Nuisance or Remedy? The Utility of Stylistic Responding as an Indicator of Data Fabrication in Surveys." Methodology 10, no. 3 (2014): 92–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000078.
Full textAbstract:
Stylistic responding is usually seen as a nuisance by researchers working with questionnaire data due to its contaminating effects on the measurement of substantiative constructs. We demonstrate that stylistic responding may be useful to improve the data quality in surveys by allowing for an identification of deviant interviewer behavior – data fabrication – in survey fieldwork. Stylistic responding in N = 710 genuine and corresponding falsified interviews was compared. Genuine survey data was collected in paper-assisted personal interviews. Corresponding falsified data were obtained by instructing falsifiers to fabricate data based on person descriptions of genuine survey respondents. Acquiescent and midpoint responding, response range, and self-enhancement emerged as useful predictors of falsification. These indicators might now be used to develop and refine multivariate statistical methods for the ex-post identification of cheating interviewers in survey fieldwork.
49
Balymova, Maria V., Konstantin Ye Burkin, Ainaz Z. Gainullin, Alena Yu Likhacheva, and Mikhail Ye Zhilkin. "Revealing the falsification of semi-finished beef products with mechanically deboned minced chicken using the example of dumplings." Butlerov Communications 64, no. 12 (2020): 40–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.37952/roi-jbc-01/20-64-12-40.
Full textAbstract:
Human nutrition is an important factor affecting human health. Counterfeiting is one of the most pressing problems in the market, which worries manufacturers, sellers and consumers. There are a variety of product counterfeiting: substitution of expensive food products for cheaper ones, manufacturing of products with low nutritional value, deterioration of the recipe and plagiarism of the brand. It is also necessary to observe the correct labeling of the product, as this enables the consumer to meet his requirements when choosing a product. This article presents the results of our own research revealing the falsification of semi-finished beef products with mechanically deboned minced chicken using the example of dumplings. In the analysis, four fatty acids were selected for the presence or absence of chicken fat in ground beef. The determination of fatty acids was carried out by gas chromatography. Gas chromatographic analysis is considered to be effective for identifying food products due to its high degree of sensitivity, speed and simplicity. Sample preparation stages included the use of sodium methoxide in methanol with a molar concentration of 2 mol/dm3. Gas chromatographic analysis was carried out on a flame ionization detector with a quartz capillary column. For simplicity, reduction of sample preparation time and better results, the samples were filtered under vacuum at atmospheric pressure, which significantly accelerated the filtration process. The analysis of the test sample was carried out in an automatic mode according to the specified program of the chromatograph. Myristic, palmitoleic, margaric, stearic, linoleic, and arachidic acids were chosen as “labels” of fatty acids. It has been shown that even an insignificant addition of one type of impurity of another to meat leads to a change in the fatty acid composition of the product.
50
Saleem, Muhammad, Gulnaz Akram, Areeha Khan Durrani, and Ali Raza Siddique. "Unriddling Academic Dishonesty through the Lens of Teacher and Student Perceptions." NUST Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 7, no. 1 (2021): 63–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.51732/njssh.v7i1.67.
Full textAbstract:
This study sought to explore contributory factors of academic dishonesty. Academic dishonesty is being practiced yet little research has been conducted on the subject. Subsequently, this study employed the qualitative approach for in-depth exploration of the factors of academic dishonesty. In this study, focus group discussions were conducted with two groups of participants; university students (N=12) and university teachers (N=08) of The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan. Participants for this study were recruited through purposive sampling. Three research questions were asked to the participants: Q1) How is academic dishonesty described by students and teachers? Q2) What would be the possible types of academic dishonesty? and Q3) What are the pros and cons of academic dishonesty in the long run? Their responses were audio taped and the collected data were transcribed by following transcription steps provided by Humble (2015). For data analysis, NVivo (12) was utilized and factors were extracted. The prudent findings found that cheating, plagiarism, falsification and failure of system are identified as the most prominent factors. The findings of this study concluded that these factors significantly shape-up academic dishonesty in higher learning institutions. Findings of this study would help educationists to bring about reforms in the educational sector.