2.
1 Ethics with respect to Science and Research
According to (Noro Psikiyatr Ars. 2017) United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defines research as systematic and creative actions
taken to increase knowledge about humans, culture, and society and to apply it in new areas
of interest. Scientific research is the research performed by applying systematic and
constructed scientific methods to obtain, analyze, and interpret data.
According to Ohdedar, A. (1993), research is a "Search or investigation directed to the discovery
of some fact by careful consideration or study of a subject," and it is a "Course of critical or
scientific inquiry.”
OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH ETHICS
Walton, N. (2018), mentioned three objectives of research ethics.
1. Firstly, safeguard the human participants;
2. Secondly, confirm that research is conducted for the betterment of human being and
society as a whole;
3. Third objective is to examine specific research activities and comes for his or her moral
soundness, observation of problems like the risk of research, confidentiality protection and
also the consent method.
PRINCIPLES OF RESEARCH ETHICS
According to Shamoo, A., and Resnik, D. (2015), the subsequent area units are the overall outline of
some moral principles that numerous research guidelines mentioned. All these are discussed below:
1. Honesty
2. Sound judgments
3. Integrity
4. Carefulness
5. Openness
6. Respect for Intellectual Property
7. Confidentiality
8. Accountable Publication
9. Accountable Mentoring
10. Respect for Colleagues
11. Social Accountability
12. Non-Discrimination
What is Ethics in Research?
When most people think of ethics (or morals), they think of rules for distinguishing between right and
wrong, such as the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), a code of
professional conduct like the Hippocratic Oath ("First of all, do no harm"), a religious creed like the
Ten Commandments ("Thou Shalt not kill..."), or a wise aphorisms like the sayings of Confucius.
This is the most common way of defining "ethics": norms for conduct that distinguish between
acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
Why is it Important?
1. First, norms promote the aims of research, such as knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error.
2. Second, since research often involves a great deal of cooperation and coordination among many
different people in different disciplines and institutions, ethical standards promote the values
that are essential to collaborative work, such as trust, accountability, mutual respect, and
fairness.
3. Third, many of the ethical norms help to ensure that researchers can be held accountable to the
public
4. Finally, many of the norms of research promote a variety of other important moral and social
values, such as social responsibility, human rights, and animal welfare, compliance with the
law, and public health and safety.
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN RESEARCH
There are many other activities that the government does not define as "misconduct" but which are
still regarded by
most researchers as unethical. These are sometimes referred to as "other deviations" from acceptable
research practices and include:
Publishing the same paper in two different journals without telling the editors.
Submitting the same paper to different journals without telling the editors.
Not informing a collaborator of your intent to file a patent in order to make sure that you are the
sole inventor.
Including a colleague as an author on a paper in return for a favor even though the colleague did not
make a serious contribution to the paper.
Discussing with your colleagues confidential data from a paper that you are reviewing for a journal.
Using data, ideas, or methods you learn about while reviewing a grant or a papers without
permission.
Trimming outliers from a data set without discussing your reasons in paper.
Using an inappropriate statistical technique in order to enhance the significance of your research.
Bypassing the peer review process and announcing your results through a press conference without
giving peers adequate information to review your work.
Conducting a review of the literature that fails to acknowledge the contributions of other people in
the field or relevant prior work.
Stretching the truth on a grant application in order to convince reviewers that your project will
make a significant contribution to the field,
Stretching the truth on a job application or curriculum vita.
Giving the same research project to two graduate students in order to see who can do it the fastest.
Overworking, neglecting, or exploiting graduate or post-doctoral students.
Failing to keep good research records.
Failing to maintain research data for a reasonable period of time.
Making derogatory comments and personal attacks in your review of author's submission.
Promising a student a better grade for sexual favors.
Using a racist epithet in the laboratory.
Making significant deviations from the research protocol approved by your institution's Animal
Care and Use Committee or Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research without telling
the committee or the board.
Not reporting an adverse event in a human research experiment.
Wasting animals in research.
Exposing students and staff to biological risks in violation of your institution's bio-safety rules.
Sabotaging someone's work.
Stealing supplies, books, or data.
Rigging an experiment so you know how it will turn out.
Making unauthorized copies of data, papers, or computer programs.
Integrity in Research
Integrity characterizes both individual researchers and the institutions in which they work. For
individuals, it is an aspect of moral character and experience. For institutions, it is a matter of creating
an environment that promotes responsible conduct by embracing standards of excellence,
trustworthiness, and lawfulness that inform institutional practices.
For the individual scientist, integrity embodies above all a commitment to intellectual honesty and
personal responsibility for one's actions and to a range of practices that characterize responsible
research conduct.
These practices include:
intellectual honesty in proposing, performing, and reporting research;
accuracy in representing contributions to research proposals and reports;
fairness in peer review;
collegiality in scientific interactions, including communications and sharing of resources;
transparency in conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest;
protection of human subjects in the conduct of research;
humane care of animals in the conduct of research; and
adherence to the mutual responsibilities between investigators and their research teams.
Codes and Policies for Research Ethics
Given the importance of ethics for the conduct of research, it should come as no surprise that many different
professional
associations, government agencies, and universities have adopted specific codes, rules, and policies relating to
research ethics.
Many government agencies have ethics rules for funded researchers.
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Singapore Statement on Research Integrity
American Chemical Society, The Chemist Professional’s Code of Conduct
Code of Ethics (American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science)
American Psychological Association, Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
Statement on Professional Ethics (American Association of University Professors)
Nuremberg Code
World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki
SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS
Research Misconduct -- FFP
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing,
performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
1. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
2. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or
omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research
record.
3. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without
giving appropriate credit.
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI), and it
applies to all federally supported research in the United States.
COMMON TYPES OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT
FABRICATION:
Fabrication is the process of making something from semi-finished or raw materials rather than from
ready-made components. In other words, it is the process of making something from scratch rather
than assembling something.
The term also means a lie.
Fabrication or falsification involves unauthorized creation, alteration or reporting of information
in an academic activity.
Examples of fabrication or falsification include the unauthorized omission of data, information,
or results in documents, reports and presentations.
How can we avoid fabrication in research?
Be a stickler for accuracy. Develop and maintain guidelines and high standards for accuracy in the
facts you report.
Take responsibility for every fact. Confirm every fact yourself with what you’ve observed, you’ve
heard in interviews with credible sources and what you’ve learned in authoritative documents.
Attribute the facts to your sources.
Stick to the facts. Avoid embellishing or exaggerating for the sake of telling a more dramatic story.
Be aware of the legal risks. Fabrication not only damages your career and the reputation of your
organization. It can result in legal liability if your fabrication could harm someone’s reputation.
FALSIFICATION:
Falsification is a fraudulent or intentionally false statement on any application, certificate, report,
or record. It is fraudulent or intentionally false entry on any application, certificate, report, or record
required be using, completing, or retaining for compliance; or a reproduction, for fraudulent purposes,
of any application, certificate, report, or record.
Examples of falsification include:
Presenting false transcripts or references in application for a program.
Submitting work which is not your own or was written by someone else
Lying about a personal issue or illness in order to extend a deadline
Plagiarism:
Plagiarism means “use of other people's writings, creative work, ideas, art, words, and expressions or
otherwise listing the source of information without giving credit to the main author or creator.” In a
nutshell, Plagiarism is stealing or academic theft. Lowa State University (2018) states that Plagiarism
is also misrepresentation and includes handing in someone else's work, ideas, or answers as your own.
According to UGC, “Plagiarism means the practice of taking someone else’s work or idea and passing
them as one’s own” (UGC, 2018). Mainly plagiarism happens inadvertently through sloppy research
or on purpose through unethical use of information. It is a serious disciplinary offense (Biswas, S. K.,
2019b, p361).
TYPES OF PLAGIARISM
There are many kinds of plagiarism, but broadly it divided into four types-
1. Deliberate Plagiarism
2. Accidental Plagiarism
3. Mosaic Plagiarism
4. Self Plagiarism
COMMON FORMS OF PLAGIARISM AND OTHER ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
According to these four sorts of plagiarism, some common forms of
plagiarism and other academic dishonesty are:
Misrepresentation of others work as your own;
Using somebody else's words, ideas without giving credit or permission;
Falsification of data and quotations;
Receiving unaccredited intervention on an assignment or test;
Duplicity in testing;
Violating guidelines of instructors for individual assignments;
Sabotaging and damaging others work;
Ghost writing
Copy and paste
IN INDIA UGC IDENTIFIED THE FOUR LEVELS OF PLAGIARISM.
i. Level 0: Similarities upto 10% - Minor Similarities, no penalty.
ii. Level 1: Similarities above 10% to 40% - Such student shall be asked to submit a revised
script within a stipulated time period not exceeding 6 months.
iii. Level 2: Similarities above 40% to 60% - Such student shall be debarred from submitting a
revised script for a period of one year.
iv. Level 3: Similarities above 60% -Such student registration for that programme shall be
cancelled.
PENALTIES IN CASE OF PLAGIARISM IN ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH
PUBLICATIONS
I. Level 0: Similarities up to 10%
i. Minor similarities, no penalty.
II. Level 1: Similarities above 10% to 40%
i. Shall be asked to withdraw manuscript.
III. Level 2: Similarities above 40% to 60%
i) Shall be asked to withdraw manuscript.
ii) Shall be denied a right to one annual increment.
iii) Shall not be allowed to be a supervisor to any new Master’s, M.Phil., Ph.D.
Student/scholar for a period of two years.
IV. Level 3: Similarities above 60%
i) Shall be asked to withdraw manuscript.
ii) Shall be denied a right to two successive annual increments.
iii) Shall not be allowed to be a supervisor to any new Master’s, M.Phil., Ph.D.
Student/scholar for a period of three years.
Software to check Plagiarism
REDUNDANT PUBLICATIONS
Redundant publication occurs when multiple papers are written without reference in the text, and
share the same text, data or results. ... Because of the availability of these tools, there is a possibility
that many authors who published abstracts or draft copies of manuscripts will be accused of self-
plagiarism.
How can an author get caught in the position of unknowingly submitting a manuscript
containing material that could be considered a duplicate publication?
Duplicate publication includes the text in an article, but it also includes figures and data sets
previously published.
If an author uses a figure in an article published in a blog, an abstract, another journal article, a
teaching file, or published lecture notes, that figure may have a copyright associated with it or it at the
very least it has been published. This figure could be a graph or drawing produced by the author or a
radiology image. Once it has been published, it cannot be included in a future article without
acknowledgement and for most peer review journals, the ability to assign the copyright to that
figure to the journal accepting the manuscript for publication. If the author uses a dataset for an
article, that dataset has been published. Different parts of the dataset can be used for subsequent
articles but not the prior published dataset.
DUPLICATE AND OVERLAPPING PUBLICATIONS
Publications overlap is the presentation of redundant ideas or data in multiple papers by the same
authors—is a
practice that warrants serious discussion. ... For example, authors may ask the same question with
different datasets,
or they may ask different questions with the same dataset.
What is the difference between the redundant publication and duplicate publication?
Duplicate submission / publication: This refers to the practice of submitting the same study to two
journals or publishing more or less the same study in two journals. ... “Self-plagiarism” is
considered a form of redundant publication. It concerns recycling or borrowing content from
previous work without citation.
SALAMI SLICING
In essence, salami slicing refers to splitting of data derived from a single research idea into multiple
smaller “publishable” units or “slices.” This practice is neither new nor entirely culpable.
In the race to publish more papers, some researchers indulge in unethical practices, one of which is
salami slicing. Salami slicing means fragmenting one study and publishing it in multiple papers. This
practice is considered improper and can affect your career, besides being damaging to science.
Why Salami Slicing is unethical ?
Minor or salami slicing is considered segmental publication or part publication of results or
reanalysis derived from a single study.
Authors do it to increase the number of publications and citations.
It is considered unethical and it is taken in a bad taste because for a reader it may cause distortion in
the conclusions drawn.
Publication of the results of a single study in parts in different journals might lead to over-judgement.
Wrong conclusions may be drawn from a study if it is done on a fixed number of subjects but the
data are being presented in fragments in different journals.
SELECTIVE REPORTING AND MISREPRESENTATION OF DATA
MISREPRESENTATION OF DATA
As a minimal answer to this question, one can define 'misrepresentation of data' as
'communicating honestly reported data in a deceptive manner. ... Other ways of
misrepresenting data include drawing unwarranted inference from data, creating deceptive
graphs of figures, and using suggestive language for rhetorical effect.
Misrepresentation of Data:- The concept of ‘misrepresentation,’ unlike ‘fabrication’ and
‘falsification,’ is neither clear nor uncontroversial.
Most scientists will agree that fabrication is making up data and falsification is changing data.
But what does it mean to misrepresent data?
As a minimal answer to this question, one can define ‘misrepresentation of data’ as ‘communicating
honestly reported data in a deceptive manner.’
But what is deceptive communication? The use of statistics presents researchers with numerous
opportunities to misrepresent data.
For example, one might use a statistical technique, such as multiple regression or the analysis of
variance, to make one's results appear more significant or convincing than they really are.
Or one might eliminate (or trim) outliers when ‘cleaning up’ raw data. Other ways of misrepresenting
data include drawing unwarranted inference from data, creating deceptive graphs of figures, and using
suggestive language for rhetorical effect.
However, since researchers often disagree about the proper use of statistical techniques and other means
of representing data, the line between misrepresentation of data and ‘disagreement about research
methods’ is often blurry.
Since ‘misrepresentation’ is difficult to define, many organizations have refused to characterize
misrepresenting data as a form of scientific misconduct.
On the other hand, it is important to call attention to the problem of misrepresenting data, if one is
concerned about promoting objectivity in research, since many of science's errors and biases result from
the misrepresentation of data.
Clear and accurate research records must underlie these descriptions, however. Researchers must be
advocates for their research conclusions in the face of collegial skepticism and must acknowledge
errors.
Unethical Practices in Scientific Research
ü Intentional negligence in the acknowledgment of previous work
ü Deliberate fabrication of data we have collected
ü Deliberate omission of known data that does not agree with the hypothesis
ü Passing another researcher’s data as one’s own
ü Publication of results without the consent of all of the researchers
ü Failure to acknowledge all of the researchers who performed the work
ü Conflict of interest
ü Repeated publication of too-similar results or reviews Breach of confidentiality
Causes of Scientific Misconduct
ü Conflict of interest—personal, professional, and financial
ü Policies regarding human subjects, live vertebrate animal subjects in research, and safe laboratory
practices
ü Mentor/mentee responsibilities and relationships
ü Collaborative research, including collaborations with industry
ü The scientist as a responsible member of society, contemporary ethical issues in biomedical
research, and
the environmental and societal impacts of scientific research.
ü Peer review
ü Data acquisition and laboratory tools management, sharing, and ownership
ü Research misconduct and policies for handling misconduct
ü Responsible authorship and publication
RETRACTION OF PAPERS
Some of the consequences of plagiarized scientific research publications.
The Oxford English Dictionary (2018) defines retraction as "the action or fact of revoking or
rescinding a decision, decree, etc." A more thorough definition is, "the action of withdrawing a
statement, accusation, etc., which is now admitted to be erroneous or unjustified... recantation; an
instance of this; a statement of making such a withdrawal."
Consequences of Retracting a Paper
Retracting a paper has historically been associated with academic fraud. Therefore, if you self-retract
your paper,
will other authors trust and cite your published work in the future? Will you be able to get future
funding? Will you
be able to get a job?
The good news is that the academic community tends to forgive genuine mistakes. Scientists learn
from these
mistakes; it also “cleans up’’ the literature, benefitting everyone. Hence, encouraging self-retraction is
beneficial to
the scientific community. It is the right thing to do.
Having an “author self-retracted article” on your resume will raise questions, but you can use it to
your advantage.
It shows that you:
Have integrity.
Can self-reflect and critically evaluate your work.
Are open to anyone challenging your assumptions.
Learn from your mistakes.
How to Self-Retract a Paper
No journal (or author) wants to retract a paper that they have published. Since mistakes do happen,
journals have retraction guidelines in place. These guidelines help academic publishers maintain a
certain standard of quality and ensure consistency within a field. These guidelines may differ between
journals. However, the overall approach is the same. Here is what you should do:
Inform all (if any) co-authors of the paper about the mistake.
Write to the journal editor explaining your reason for self-retraction.
Ask them for their self-retraction guidelines.
In some cases, seek legal advice. The team involved in the publication of the paper, from researchers
to editors decides it.
Researchers Who Have Confessed their Mistakes
There is research life after self-retraction. Nathan Georgette, for example, a Harvard Medical School
student retracted the first paper he published. His honesty did not impact his career negatively.
Another researcher, Pamela Ronald from the University of California, took her self-retraction a step
further. She was working on mislabelled bacterial strains; these mislabelled bacterial strains and their
protein assay was unreliable. Not only did she self-retract her papers, she told the research community
about her mistakes at a conference. It was the most challenging talk of her life. However, scientists at
the conference congratulated her for doing the right thing.
IFLA --- The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity was published on 14 September
2018 and The
Code of Conduct entered into force on 1 October 2018. As per IFLA :
Why is this code of conduct important:
It gives an overview of rights and duties for individual researchers as well as research groups or
organizations dealing with research.
This Code has been adopted by many Dutch organizations like e.g. he Royal Netherlands Academy
of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) and others.
The code also respects the scope of international framework documents such as the Singapore
Statement on Research Integrity (2010),the OECD’s Best Practices for Ensuring Scientific Integrity
and Preventing Misconduct (2007) and ALLEA’s recently revised European Code of Conduct for
Research Integrity (2017)
Contents of the Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
It covers and describes five ethical principles:
Honesty
Scrupulousness
Transparency
Independence
Responsibility
Now a day, in the rapidly changing paradigm of technology, so we found that sometimes pupils fall
under plagiarism due to not knowing when and how to cite, how to paraphrase, or summarize it.
There are so many information sources available in market and web, but a library collects and
preserves mainly such sources which fulfill the legitimate need of their users. In this regard, this
article critically discusses various types of literary concepts, terminologies, and definitions of
misconducts with plagiarism and its consequences. Principles are the basis of integrity in research.
They should guide individual researchers as well as other parties involved in research, such as the
institutions where it is conducted, publishers, scientific editors, funding bodies and scientific and
scholarly societies – all of which, given their role and interest in responsible research practices, may
be expected to foster
integrity. (According to IFLA).
