Search

Empirical studies have revealed a disturbing prevalence of research misconduct in a wide variety of disciplines, although not, to date, in the areas of ethics and philosophy. This study aims to provide empirical evidence on perceptions of how serious a problem research misconduct is in these two disciplines in Spain, particularly regarding the effects that the model used to evaluate academics' research performance may have on their ethical behaviour. The methodological triangulation applied in the study combines a questionnaire, a debate at the annual meeting of scientific association, and in-depth interviews. Of the 541 questionnaires sent out, 201 responses were obtained (37.1% of the total sample), with a significant difference in the participation of researchers in philosophy (30.5%) and in ethics (52.8%); 26 researchers took part in the debate and 14 interviews were conducted. The questionnaire results reveal that 91.5% of the respondents considered research misconduct to be on the rise; 63.2% considered at least three of the fraudulent practices referred to in the study to be commonplace, and 84.1% identified two or more such practices. The researchers perceived a high prevalence of duplicate publication (66.5%) and self-plagiarism (59.0%), use of personal influence (57.5%) and citation manipulation (44.0%), in contrast to a low perceived incidence of data falsification or fabrication (10.0%). The debate and the interviews corroborated these data. Researchers associated the spread of these misconducts with the research evaluation model applied in Spain.

We discuss prior publication and redundancy in contemporary science in the context of changing perceptions of originality in the communication of research results. These perceptions have been changing in the publication realm, particularly in the last 15 years. Presenting a brief overview of the literature, we address some of the conflicts that are likely to arise between authors and editors. We illustrate our approach with conference presentations that are later published as journal articles and focus on a recent retraction of an article that had been previously published as a conference proceedings. Although we do not make definitive pronouncements on the matter-as many concepts are evolving-we do argue that conference papers that contain sufficient details for others to attempt a replication and are indexed in scientific databases such as PubMed, challenge some currently held assumptions of prior publication and originality in the sciences. Our view is that these important issues are in need of further clarification and harmonization within the science publishing community. This need is more evident when we consider current notions of research integrity when it comes to communication to peers. Revisiting long-standing views about what constitutes prior publication and developing a clearer set of guidelines for authors and editors to follow should reduce conflicts in the research environment, which already exerts considerable pressure, especially on newcomers in academia. However, while clearer guidelines are timely, developing them is only part of the challenge. The present times seem to call for deeper changes in the research and publication systems.

In recent years the incidence of scientific misconduct has increased. While the direct responsibility lies with the individual researcher, the educational role of mentors and research institutions needs rethinking and renewal. Researchers, principal investigators, departments, institutions, funding agencies, chemical societies, publishers, scientific journal editors, referees and editorial board members all have responsibilities in order to maintain the integrity of chemistry within the scientific community and to restore the confidence of the general public in chemistry as a responsible contributor to the solutions of the global problems facing mankind in this century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess the prevalence of plagiarism in manuscripts submitted for publication in the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ). All manuscripts submitted in 2009-2010 were analyzed using plagiarism detection software: eTBLAST, CrossCheck, and WCopyfind. Plagiarism was suspected in manuscripts with more than 10% of the text derived from other sources. These manuscripts were checked against the Déjà vu database and manually verified by investigators. Of 754 submitted manuscripts, 105 (14%) were identified by the software as suspicious of plagiarism. Manual verification confirmed that 85 (11%) manuscripts were plagiarized: 63 (8%) were true plagiarism and 22 (3%) were self-plagiarism. Plagiarized manuscripts were mostly submitted from China (21%), Croatia (14%), and Turkey (19%). There was no significant difference in the text similarity rate between plagiarized and self-plagiarized manuscripts (25% [95% CI 22-27%] vs. 28% [95% CI 20-33%]; U = 645.50; P = 0.634). Differences in text similarity rate were found between various sections of self-plagiarized manuscripts (H = 12.65, P = 0.013). The plagiarism rate in the Materials and Methods (61% (95% CI 41-68%) was higher than in the Results (23% [95% CI 17-36%], U = 33.50; P = 0.009) or Discussion (25.5 [95% CI 15-35%]; U = 57.50; P < 0.001) sections. Three authors were identified in the Déjà vu database. Plagiarism detection software combined with manual verification may be used to detect plagiarized manuscripts and prevent their publication. The prevalence of plagiarized manuscripts submitted to the CMJ, a journal dedicated to promoting research integrity, was 11% in the 2-year period 2009-2010. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Plagiarism is a form of research misconduct and a serious violation of the norms of science. It is the misrepresentation of another''s ideas or words as one''s own, without proper acknowledgement of the original source. Certain aspects of plagiarism make it less straightforward than this definition suggests. Over the past 30 years, the U.S. Federal Government has developed and refined its policies on misconduct, and Federal agencies, as well as research institutions, have established approaches to responding to allegations and instances of plagiarism. At present, efforts to avert plagiarism focus on plagiarism-detection software and instructional strategies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Plagiarism represents a serious and growing problem in science, with only a fraction of such publications detected and retracted. Any initiative to deal efficiently with the problem of plagiarism would require a joint effort of academic publishers and editors. The most effective measure would be to establish a common plagiarism detection system, adopted by all peer-reviewed journals and major publishers, with automatic uploading and cross-checking of each newly submitted manuscript with both published material and all further and ongoing submissions. If adequately implemented, such system would fully resolve the problem of multiple submissions, and detect instances of plagiarism of unpublished material. Significant portion of scientific misconduct cases would be resolved, in most cases much before the publishing stage. This would greatly benefit the scientific community and science in general. The need for publishing retraction notices would be also diminished, thereby reducing the publishing costs. Lastly, the system would probably act as a deterrent, passively contributing to plagiarism frequency reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]