Search

Innovation and the development of knowledge in the field of scientific research is increasing exponentially, but it continues to be disjointed. It makes it difficult to keep up with state-of-the-art and to be at the forefront of research and dissemination, as well as to evaluate empirical evidence in the area of academic excellence. Recent literature reviews are frequently lacking in thoroughness and rigor and are carried out in part rather than using a specific design. This descriptive-mapping review aimed to illustrate plagiarism and research integrity literature published over a 10-year period (2010 to 2020). To achieve this goal, literature reviews were conducted to obtain relevant articles and documentation on plagiarism and its potential impact in the academic and publishing industries. Methodical searches in specific databases such as Web of Science and Scopus, including the Google Scholar Search Engine, have been undertaken to ensure the accuracy of the results. Thereafter, descriptive mapping was used to categorize qualifying articles. Over 350 titles were collected from the searches, of which 129 complete works were published in various journals during the covered period. Finally, in this review, 35 papers were eligible for inclusion. The themes were enumerated in the scholarly articles. Findings revealed a dearth of scientifically credible and relevant literature on plagiarism issues, such as the phenomenon in the academic environment, its particular specific factors and triggering causes, and the impacts of the institutional policy interventions being enforced. Although the results provided background information for the creation of a realistic guide to avoid plagiarism incidences, robust empirical and evaluative studies should be planned to identify the real implications of preventing plagiarism to uphold the credibility of scientific research and evaluate the impact of ethical issues, practices, and policies suggested by organizations and industries.

Publishing scientific articles is an expedition of tenacious efforts with patience and conscientious decision-making; however, even with such careful consideration, researchers may overlook the dubious activities of clandestine organizations or remain oblivious to the unethical aspects of publishing. Paper mills are the latest impediment to academic publishing's integrity. The increasing number of paper mill publications damages the credibility of genuine journals and jeopardizes academic integrity, adding to the vulnerability of research. This paper deals with the tactics, activity, detection, impact, and solving the menace of such fraudulent practices. This paper is a summary of existing literature and analysis that aims to increase awareness of fraudulent practices like paper mills among researchers and academicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study delves into the opportunities and challenges associated with the deployment of AI tools in the education sector. It systematically explores the potential benefits and risks inherent in utilizing these tools while specifically addressing the complexities of identifying and preventing academic dishonesty. Recognizing the ethical dimensions, the paper further outlines strategies that educational institutions can adopt to ensure the ethical and responsible use of AI tools. Emphasizing a proactive stance, the paper suggests that by implementing these strategies, schools can harness the benefits of AI tools while mitigating the risks associated with potential misuse. As the adoption of AI tools in education continues to expand, all stakeholders must stay abreast of the latest developments in the field. This knowledge equips educators to navigate the opportunities and challenges posed by AI tools, fostering a learning environment that is both secure and conducive to empowering students to realize their full potential.

After 9/11, the academic study of terrorism flourished as more government resources were focused on counterterrorism efforts. As the focus slowly shifted towards P/CVE or Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism, more and more articles lauded the potential benefits of including Formers. The idea behind that was that experience equals expertise. Formers have been valuable data sources as research participants. However, the current trend has seen Formers leave that role and take on far more complicated and sophisticated roles, such as deradicalization experts, claiming to help people leave extremism. This policy paper focuses on the evidence, specifically the lack of evidence, to support the prevailing assumptions regarding the effectiveness of Formers and dissects the ethical issues arising from their involvement in P/CVE. The paper ends with policy recommendations to shift P/CVE activities and research toward a more empirically-grounded model. Since P/CVE initiatives involve a variety of actors, from academic researchers to the media to practitioners, this paper is not aimed at one field or profession. Rather, it is intended for everyone involved in P/CVE-related activities, including research.

In recent years, there has been a hyper production of various scientific, professional papers, books that were available in paper or electronic form. The possibility for everyone to freely publish and be the author of works of different character brings its own challenge: how to publish a work that is original and does not infringe the copyrights of another author or another aspect of the problem: how to protect possible plagiarism of your works. The paper will analyze the rights of the authors of scientific and professional works, as a type of author's work, and the conditions of copyright that apply in the Republic of North Macedonia and in comparative law, including the most important international conventions. This paper intends to show that the researches that are done in different scientific fields need to be considered from an ethical point of view, that is, the code of ethics should be an element inseparable from the researches. Ethics in scientific - research work is of great importance in the context of the relevance of information, the conclusions reached by researchers and in general, when we talk about research, we imply ethical research. Furthermore, the concept of plagiarism, one of the biggest problems in scientific-research ethics and how plagiarism can be proven, will be analyzed. At the end, the measures that have been taken by the authors for the protection of copyrights also will be analyzed. In the course of the analysis, the (un)ethical aspects of the scientific-research work, the completion of infringing other people's copyrights, will be discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

UC Berkeley Library secured a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities to support an Institute for Advanced Topics in the Digital Humanities to help key stakeholders to learn to better navigate legal issues in text data mining. UC Berkeley Library’s Office of Scholarly Communication Services led a national team from more than a dozen institutions and organizations to teach humanities researchers, librarians, and research staff how to confidently navigate the major legal issues that arise in text data mining research. Our institute was called Building Legal Literacies for Text Data Mining (Building LLTDM), and ran from June 23-26, 2020.This white paper describes the institute’s origins and goals, project overview and activities, and reflections and possible follow-on actions.

Summary: “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.” -Potter Stewart.In their position paper, “Ethical Aspects of Artificially Administered Nutrition and Hydration: An ASPEN Position Paper”, [1] Schwartz et al. eloquently communicate key ethical concepts surrounding the care of patients receiving artificially administered nutrition and hydration (AANH). Ethically, all clinicians have the right and responsibility to provide nutrition-related access and resources to individuals in their care. At the same time, AANH is not always the right treatment to offer or provide.This revised position paper, published in Nutrition in Clinical Practice (NCP) in April 2021 [1], is the work of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) International Clinical Ethics Position Paper Update Workgroup. It represents a comprehensive update of the Ethics Position Paper of the ASPEN Ethics Position Paper Task Force, published in NCP in 2010. [2] The revised position paper includes a detailed discussion of important ethical considerations not covered in the 2010 paper: cancer and AANH, eating disorders and AANH, ethical considerations raised during the COVID-19 pandemic, and an international perspective on ethics and AANH. The position paper also references the Cartagena Declaration of 2019, which “stresses the recognition that nutrition care is a human right” [1,3] and comments that “extrapolating from this document, it appears to support resource allocation in a fair, transparent and consistent fashion” [1,3].This commentary summarizes the position paper and serves as a “call to action”. All medical professionals can and should engage in ethical aspects of AANH. Roles may vary depending on professional discipline and setting, but each interdisciplinary team member provides critical value. We also strongly encourage all readers to engage in conversations surrounding the topic of AANH and ethics: disseminating the principles in the position paper via local, regional, and national conference presentations, journal club discussions, grand rounds, and within the fundamental educational preparation of all clinicians involved in nutrition therapy practice.

Our system of research self-regulation, designed to provide internal checks and balances for those who participate in research involving human subjects, is under considerable stress. Much of this crisis has been caused by what we call mission creep, in which the workload of IRBs has expanded beyond their ability to handle effectively. Mission creep is caused by rewarding wrong behaviors, such as focusing more on procedures and documentation than difficult ethical questions; unclear definitions, which lead to unclear responsibilities; efforts to comply with unwieldy federal requirements even when research is not federally funded; exaggerated precautions to protect against program shutdowns; and efforts to protect against lawsuits. We recommend collecting data. We also call for refinements to our regulatory system that will provide a set of regulations designed for non-biomedical research. This will enable IRBs to direct attention to the areas of greatest risk while intentionally scaling back oversight in areas of lesser risk. We recommend removing some kinds of activity from IRB review altogether. Our system, if not broken, is seriously straining at the seams. It is imperative that we have a respected and effective system in place to protect human research subjects, so that much-needed research into the causes and prevention of disease and other research expanding the boundaries of knowledge can proceed. We hope that this White Paper will further the discussion about what reasonable procedures can be instituted to help get IRBs back on track and do what they were originally meant to do--protect the rights and welfare of human subjects while allowing the research enterprise to progress and its benefits to society to accrue. (Contains 8 notes.)

Educational disparities are one of the most essential issues surrounding education and equity. Previous research includes many empirical studies which have been conducted to eliminate educational disparities. However, the normative question "Why do educational disparities matter?" has not been carefully examined in empirical studies on educational disparities. This question can be answered based on the value of fairness. But what is fairness? Is it enough if a fair educational system is realized? Based on the above concerns, this paper examines the value of fairness, which is a normative assumption of studies on educational disparities. The paper confirms that the value of fairness behind the argument "educational disparities should be corrected" can be clarified and justified by luck egalitarianism, and clarifies the problems associated with pursuing fairness by examining Elizabeth Anderson's critique of luck egalitarianism. Specifically, the paper focuses on the harshness objection and the humiliation objection. It shows that, even if fairness in education is achieved, it may not result in an ideal education for all, because it may leave some children in a harsh situation and humiliate them in the process of providing compensation through redistribution. The paper then discusses three values that should be added to fairness: fresh start, sufficiency, and respect. After that, it discusses why these values are important and what issues should be considered in future empirical research on educational disparities. The paper also presents suggestions toward examining the problems of meritocracy.

Despite now long-standing recognition of the value and importance of the scholarship of teaching and learning, questions continue to be raised about how to satisfy the hybrid responsibilities of teaching and research. The key message of this paper is that instructor-researchers, educational developers, and research ethics personnel should consider two key guidance documents in tandem: the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education's statement on Ethical Principles in University Teaching (Murray, Gillese, Lennon, Mercer, & Robinson, 1996) and the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 2014). Together these documents provide much needed guidance for teaching and researching ethically.

Academic journals rely crucially upon the willingness of academics to review papers and for them to provide high-quality review reports. The purpose of this Editorial is to assist reviewers for Tourism and Hospitality in providing review reports that will be helpful to the journal editors in making decisions about whether to accept, reject or require revisions to papers that are submitted to the journal. It provides reviewers with a ‘peep behind the curtain’ of what can sometimes seem a rather opaque paper review process, with the aim of clarifying the purpose and format of the review process, and thereby to gain a greater appreciation of what it required of them. Several tips for writing high-quality review reports are also presented.

This article deconstructs the language of the 2010 UK Coalition Government's White Paper, "The Importance of Teaching". It uses analytical frameworks related to rhetoric established by Aristotle and Cicero. It explores the mechanisms of language using both critical discourse analysis and content analysis, offering quantitative data on the content of the paper and qualitative data on the literary strategies employed. It is concerned not only with how what is communicated persuades but also the ethics of persuasion; what is suggested and to what end. The article suggests a mutually reinforcing relationship between poverty of language and poverty of thought. The Coalition Government asserts an heroic stance to act radically to free victimised teachers from the burdens of bureaucracy imposed by the previous government. However, rather than radical action to make change, the findings suggest that the White Paper presents an illusory carapace of change that conceals fundamental continuity. It reassures all of the commitment of government and audiences to change while sustaining education as fundamentally unchanged.

In this article I begin by discussing the persistent problem of relations between educational inequality and the attainment gap in schools. Because benefits accruing from an education are substantial, the "gap" leads to large disparities in the quality of life many young people can expect to experience in the future. Curriculum knowledge has been a focus for debate in England in relation to educational equality for over 40 years. Given the contestation surrounding views about curriculum knowledge and equality I consider the thinking of two philosophers, Jacques Derrida and Emmanuel Levinas, and their work on justice, to trouble the curriculum framework and discourse of knowledge promoted through the policy text of "The Importance of Teaching: The Schools White Paper" (2010) and later associated policy reforms to the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) curriculum in England. The Schools White Paper aims to make the curriculum more challenging to students by introducing tight controls in terms of the assessment framework and curriculum knowledge. I argue that, when considered through Derrida's perspective on language and meaning and Levinas' view on the ethical responsibility for the other, the reforms present obstacles to the search for a just curriculum. I look to the work of Sharon Todd and Paul Standish for a re-imagination of curriculum as or through relations in the light of Derrida's and Levinas' philosophies.

Campbell, Swift and Denton depict the new terrain of academic dishonesty on the Internet, identifying online term paper vendors and discussing strategies for management educators. Mello's commentary adds additional suggestions to combat cheating. (SK)

In the care of adolescents, health care providers often face situations raising ethical concerns or dilemmas, such as refusal of a treatment or hospitalization, or request of confidentiality while engaging in risky behaviors or facing unplanned pregnancy. This position paper provides concrete avenues as how to assess the adolescent's capacity for autonomous decision making, e.g. the patient's competence in a specific situation, and how to elicit informed choice or consent. To do so, professionals need to be sensitized and trained as how to assess the cognitive and socio-psychological development of the young patient. Another challenge for the health professionals is to balance the needs to support patient's autonomy while offering secure guidance and protection if needed. To optimize such a process, they establish a climate of trust and empathy that will allow the patient to participate freely in the decision. In addition, especially when the decisions have potentially important consequences on the health and life, the professionals include, with the adolescent's permission, parents, caregivers or other significant adults, as well as they may request the opinion of other members of the health care team or expert colleagues such as ethicists.