1.

DEFINITION OF PHILOSOPHY

Western philosophy was born in Greece; the term ‘philosophy’ too has its roots in Greece
and in Greek language. It is quite commonly known that philosophia etymologically means ‘love
of wisdom’ (Philia + Sophia). But sophia had a much wider range of application than the modern
English "wisdom." Wherever intelligence can be exercised—in practical affairs, in the
mechanical arts, in business—there is room for Sophia. Herodotus used the verb philosophein in
a context in which it means nothing more than the desire to find out. We can find a gradual
growth in the meaning of philosophy, as we go through the history of thought.

According to a tradition, Pythagoras was the first to describe himself as a philosopher. He

speaks of three classes of people, attending the festal games: those who seek fame by taking part
in them; those who seek gain by plying their trade; and those who are content to be spectators.
Philosophers resemble the third class: spurning both fame and profit, they seek to arrive at the
truth by contemplation. Pythagoras distinguished the sophia sought by the philosopher
(knowledge based on contemplation) from the practical shrewdness of the businessman and the
trained skills of the athlete. Plato points to Socrates as the philosopher. Plato gives a few
characteristics of philosophical wisdom, such as ability to enter into critical discussion, having
direct access to "true reality," knowledge of the purpose of life, etc. As evident from above,
although philosophy is etymologically defined as ‘love of wisdom’, the meaning of wisdom is
taken in a wider sense.

Oxford Dictionary defines philosophy as "that department of knowledge which deals with
ultimate reality, or with the most general causes and principles of things." It is presumed here
that science, inheriting the cosmological tradition, does not offer us the knowledge of ultimate
reality; only philosophy can do this. Science can only tell us how, whereas philosophy can tell us
why, things happen as they do. Although science too speaks about the why or the causes, the
"general causes and principles" of the philosopher are "higher" and "more ultimate" than the
causes and principles that science reveals to us. There are two very different forms of activity
now go under the name of "philosophy": one is essentially rational and critical, with logical
analysis (in a broad sense) at its heart; the other (represented by Heidegger, for example) is
openly hostile to rational analysis and professes to arrive at general conclusions by a
phenomenological intuition or hermeneutical interpretation. The various schools of thought,
belonging to these two branches, make use of different procedures or methods, which will be
taken up in another Unit.

Aristotle considers philosophy as "the first and last science"—the first science because it
is logically presupposed by every other science, the last because deals with reality in its ultimate
principles and causes. He defines it as follows: "There is a science which investigates being as
being, and the attributes which belong to this in virtue of its own nature. Now this is not the same
as any of the so-called special sciences, for none of these treats universally of being as being.
They cut off a part of being and investigate the attribute of this part"
PHILOSOPHY AND PHILOSOPHIZING

After having seen the definition of philosophy, and received some understanding about
‘philosophy’, it is necessary that we introduce another notion, which is apparently similar to it,
but very much different from it. That notion is nothing other than ‘philosophizing’. Though the
term ‘philosophizing’ is not of any recent origin, it has become in recent times more widespread
in its being used in philosophical circles, in comparison to the more popular term ‘philosophy’.
This change is not a terminological change of one term (philosophizing) replacing another term
(philosophy). But even in philosophical circles these terms are mistakenly used as synonymous.
There is a basic difference between ‘philosophy’ and ‘philosophizing’ in their meaning and
content. The term ‘philosophy’ is nominal in its structure, static and dead in its meaning, and
refers to the finished product of thought, while the term ‘philosophizing’ is verbal in its structure,
dynamic and alive in its meaning, and refers to the process of thinking.

The term ‘philosophizing’ reflects such a philosophical dynamism and humility of being
constantly in search, taking serious consideration of the elements of time and space. Thus
philosophizing is and has to be different according to the different places, times and perspectives.
From what is explained above, we are not proposing that the term ‘philosophy’ be replaced with
‘philosophizing’; rather we want to bring to the attention of the students that there is a difference
in the meaning of these terms, and that in the contemporary understanding ‘philosophy’ should
have a meaning with a philosophical dynamism and humility, which is better reflected in the
term, philosophizing.

SCOPE OF PHILOSOPHY

We start with the most fundamental realm of philosophy: metaphysics. It is the inquiry into the
first whence and the last whither, an inquiry into the ‘beyond’ of physics, that seeks to ask and
answer the most ultimate and fundamental questions about the whole of reality—the Divine, the
human, and the cosmos. Metaphysical questions embrace everything as a whole. This does not
mean that such questions are merely general questions; they are the most fundamental (the first
whence) and ultimate (the last whither) questions. However advanced the physicist’s world may
have grown, still the ‘world’ and concern of metaphysician is totally different from that of his
counterpart. Thus metaphysics occupies the foundational realm in philosophy. Another set of
problems that philosophy has to consider are those connected with our thinking. There is, first of
all, the study of valid thinking or argument, which is called ‘logic’. A related area is the ‘latent
structure of our actual thinking’, traditionally called epistemology or theory of knowledge. It is
the study, not so much on what we know or how we know, but what it is to know. The study of
good and evil too is a baffling question for the philosophers. It is the realm of morality. It does
not enumerate the good and bad actions, but it makes a fundamental analysis as to what it is to be
right or wrong. It enables the human mind to distinguish between what is good and what is bad;
thus it is a fundamental search. Although cosmos is subjected to a thorough analysis in the wake
of the growth of science, philosophy has not left it only to science. Complementing the scientific
knowledge of the cosmos, philosophy too looks at it in its radicality. Even though what has been
traditionally developed as cosmology by Aristotle is differently looked at in today’s scientific
period, it continues to be a philosophical discipline. Reality includes not only cosmos, but the
realms of the human and of the Divine as well. These realms too are philosophically considered
in philosophical anthropology (traditionally known as rational psychology) and in the philosophy
of God (traditionally known as theodicy). Besides these traditionally accepted fields, philosophy
brings to its embrace almost every other question. Everything is looked at in their ultimate causes
and principles.

The Branches of Philosophy

Western philosophy can be divided into six branches that have assumed various importance over
time. Traditionally metaphysics sets the questions for philosophy. Epistemology asks how do we
know? Ethics and politics have to do with action and quality of life. Aesthetics or value theory
has to do with beauty, balance, and harmony. Logic has to do with the relations of things.
Epistemology sometimes replaces metaphysics these days, because it has fewer religious
overtones. Among Eastern European and continental philosophers, philosophy tends to be the
study of politics. Logic is critical for analytic philosophers, who are deeply suspicious of ethics,
politics, and metaphysics.

Epistemology[edit]
The theory of knowledge, from the Greek words episteme (knowledge) and logos
(word/speech/study), is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, origin, scope and
(possibility/study) of knowledge. Dealing with nature is one of the branches of philosophy. But
before anything is done, the meaning of philosophy should be understood. A philosopher of
religion must be objective. Anyone who is ready to study philosophy should be able to attack and
defend. In other definition logic is the study of reasoning. It can also be described as the study of
strength of the evident links between the premises and the conclusion. Logic is further divided
into deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning proceeds from a general
statement to a particular statement. It is mostly a valid argument given that is tautological in
nature. This means that the conclusion bares no new knowledge that it (conclusion) is missing in
the premises. Inductive argument: This reasoning perceives from a particular statement to a
general statement. This reasoning is mostly utilized in the scientific researches.
Metaphysics[edit]
Metaphysics however (derived from the Greek words "meta & physika") - meaning 'after
physics'. It was the way students referred to a specific book in the works of Aristotle, and it was
a book on First Philosophy. (The assumption that the word means "beyond physics" is
misleading) Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of "first
principles" and "being" (ontology). In other words, Metaphysics is the study of the most general
aspects of reality, pertaining to subjects such as substance, identity, the nature of the mind, and
free will. It is a study of nature, the nature of reality, and the nature of the world in which
humans live.
Logic[edit]
Logic (from Classical Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, but
coming to mean thought or reason is most often said to be the study of arguments. Logic is the
study of correct reasoning. However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same:
to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish.
Ethics[edit]
Ethics is a general term for what is often described as the "science (study) of morality". In
philosophy, ethical behaviour is that which is "good" or "right". The Western tradition of ethics
is sometimes called moral philosophy. It's the study of right and wrong in human endeavors.
Aesthetics[edit]
Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy that explores the creation and appreciation of beauty
through critical analysis and reflection.
Other Branches[edit]
Philosophy of Education: Fairly self-explanatory. A minor branch, mainly concerned with what
is the correct way to educate a person. Classic works include Plato's Republic, Locke's Thoughts
Concerning Education, and Rousseau's Emile.
Philosophy of History: Fairly minor branch (not as minor as education), although highly
important to Hegel and those who followed him, most notably Marx. It is the philosophical study
of history, particularly concerned with the question whether history (i.e. the universe and/or
humankind) is progressing towards a specific end? Hegel argued that it was, as did Marx. Classic
works include Vico's New Science, and Hegel and Marx's works.
Philosophy of Language: Ancient branch of philosophy which gained prominence in the last
century under Wittgenstein. Basically concerned with how our languages affect our thought.
Wittgenstein famously asserted that the limits of our languages mark the limits of our thought.
Classic works include Plato's Cratylus, Locke's Essay, and Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-
Philosophicus.
Philosophy of Law: Also called Jurisprudence. Study of law attempting to discern what the best
laws might be, how laws came into being in the first place, attempting to delimit human laws
from natural laws, whether we should always obey the law, and so on. Law isn't often directly
dealt with by philosophers, but much of political philosophy obviously has a bearing on it.
Philosophy of Mathematics: Concerned with issues such as, the nature of the axioms and
symbols (numbers, triangle, operands) of mathematics that we use to understand the world, do
perfect mathematical forms exist in the real world, and so on. Principia Mathematica is almost
certainly the most important work in this field.
Philosophy of Mind: Study of the mind, attempting to ascertain exactly what the mind is, how it
interacts with our body, do other minds exist, how does it work, and so on. Probably the most
popular branch of philosophy right now, it has expanded to include issues of AI. Classic works
include Plato's Republic and Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, although every major
philosopher has had some opinion at least on what the mind is and how it works.
 Philosophy of Politics: Closely related to ethics, this is a study of government and nations,
particularly how they came about, what makes good governments, what obligations citizens have
towards their government, and so on. Classic works include Plato's Republic, Hobbes' Leviathan,
Locke's Two Treatises, and J.S. Mill's On Liberty.
Philosophy of Religion: Theology is concerned with the study of God, recommending the best
religious practises, how our religion should shape our life, and so on. Philosophy of religion is
concerned with much the same issues, but where Theology uses religious works, like the Bible,
as its authority, philosophy likes to use reason as the ultimate authority.
Philosophy of Science: It is the Study of science concerned with whether scientific knowledge
can be said to be certain, how we obtain it, can science really explain everything, does causation
really exist, can every event in the universe be described in terms of physics and so on. Also
popular in recent times, classic works include Hume's Treatise on Human Nature, Kripke's
Naming and Necessity, Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

What is ethics?
At its simplest, ethics is a system of moral principles. They affect how people make decisions
and lead their lives.

Ethics is concerned with what is good for individuals and society and is also described as moral
philosophy.

The term is derived from the Greek word ethos which can mean custom, habit, character or
disposition.

Ethics covers the following dilemmas:

 how to live a good life

 our rights and responsibilities
 the language of right and wrong
 moral decisions - what is good and bad?
Our concepts of ethics have been derived from religions, philosophies and cultures. They infuse
debates on topics like abortion, human rights and professional conduct.

Approaches to ethics
Philosophers nowadays tend to divide ethical theories into three areas: metaethics, normative
ethics and applied ethics.

 Meta-ethics deals with the nature of moral judgement. It looks at the origins and meaning
of ethical principles.
 Normative ethics is concerned with the content of moral judgements and the criteria for
what is right or wrong.
 Applied ethics looks at controversial topics like war, animal rights and capital
punishment

What use is ethics?

If ethical theories are to be useful in practice, they need to affect the way human beings behave.

Some philosophers think that ethics does do this. They argue that if a person realises that it
would be morally good to do something then it would be irrational for that person not to do it.

But human beings often behave irrationally - they follow their 'gut instinct' even when their head
suggests a different course of action.

However, ethics does provide good tools for thinking about moral issues.

Ethics can provide a moral map

Most moral issues get us pretty worked up - think of abortion and euthanasia for starters.
Because these are such emotional issues we often let our hearts do the arguing while our brains
just go with the flow.

But there's another way of tackling these issues, and that's where philosophers can come in - they
offer us ethical rules and principles that enable us to take a cooler view of moral problems.

So ethics provides us with a moral map, a framework that we can use to find our way through
difficult issues.

Ethics can pinpoint a disagreement

Using the framework of ethics, two people who are arguing a moral issue can often find that
what they disagree about is just one particular part of the issue, and that they broadly agree on
everything else.

That can take a lot of heat out of the argument, and sometimes even hint at a way for them to
resolve their problem.

But sometimes ethics doesn't provide people with the sort of help that they really want.

Ethics doesn't give right answers

Ethics doesn't always show the right answer to moral problems.
Indeed more and more people think that for many ethical issues there isn't a single right answer -
just a set of principles that can be applied to particular cases to give those involved some clear
choices.

Some philosophers go further and say that all ethics can do is eliminate confusion and clarify the
issues. After that it's up to each individual to come to their own conclusions.

Ethics can give several answers

Many people want there to be a single right answer to ethical questions. They find moral
ambiguity hard to live with because they genuinely want to do the 'right' thing, and even if they
can't work out what that right thing is, they like the idea that 'somewhere' there is one right
answer.

But often there isn't one right answer - there may be several right answers, or just some least
worst answers - and the individual must choose between them.

For others moral ambiguity is difficult because it forces them to take responsibility for their own
choices and actions, rather than falling back on convenient rules and customs.

What is Moral Philosophy?

Moral Philosophy is the rational study of the meaning and justification of moral
claims.  A moral claim evaluates the rightness or wrongness of an action or a person’s
character.  For example, “Lying is wrong” claims the act of lying is wrong, while “One shouldn’t
be lazy” claims a character trait (i.e., laziness) is wrong.  Moral philosophy is usually divided
into three distinct subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.
 What is Metaethics?
Metaethics examines the nature of moral claims and arguments.   This partly involves attempting
to determine if moral claims have clear essential meanings (i.e., they avoid vagueness and
ambiguity).  But it also attempts to answer questions such as: Are moral claims expressions of
individual emotions?  Are moral claims social inventions?  Are moral claims divine
commands?  Can one justify moral claims?  How does one justify them? 
 
Our class discussions will focus on metaethics when we examine Nagel’s moral philosophy
chapter in What Does It All Mean?.  Nagel attempts to answer the ancient metaethical question,
“Why be moral?”

What is Normative Ethics?

Normative ethics examines moral standards that attempt to define right and wrong
conduct.  Historically, this has involved examining good and bad habits, duties, or an action’s
consequences.  In addition, historically, normative ethics has focused on the prospect of a single
moral standard defining right and wrong conduct; but it has become more common for
philosophers to propose a moral pluralism with multiple moral standards. 
Our class discussions will examine four moral standards: ethical egoism, ethical relativism, the
principle of utility, and Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative.

What is Applied Ethics?

Applied ethics examines specific moral issues.  For example, one is doing applied ethics when
one addresses the morality of abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, environmental concerns,
or homosexuality.  By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions
in applied ethics try to resolve these issues.
 Our class discussions will not focus on applied ethics.  If you are interested in applied ethics, the
philosophy department offers Philosophy 7, Contemporary Moral Issues.  While the topics can
vary from semester to semester, recent contemporary moral issues classes have examined
abortion, capital punishment, homosexual marriage, pornography, and war and terrorism.

Doing Moral Philosophy

While metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are distinct subjects, these subjects are
interdependent.  For example, how one pursues normative ethics will be greatly affected by one’s
metaethical assumptions.  If one assumes, for example, that moral claims are divine commands,
then one’s normative positions will be determined by identifying divine commands.  Given this
relationship between metaethics and normative ethics, it is common for metaethical questions to
arise during a class discussion on normative ethics.  If you have such a question, don’t hesitate to
ask.  While I will be able to give only a brief answer in class, I think such questions are a vital
part of doing moral philosophy.  Similarly, how one pursues applied ethics will be greatly
affected by one’s normative assumptions.  If one assumes that one always should pursue those
actions which lead to the best consequences, then one’s position on, for example, capital
punishment, abortion, and terrorism will be determined by identifying which action(s) will lead
to the best consequences.  Given this relationship between metaethics and normative ethics, it is
common for normative questions to arise during a discussion on normative ethics.  Since we will
not focus on applied ethics, it probably will not occur in our class discussions.  However, if this
occurs when discussing an applied ethical issue (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment,
war and terrorism), remember that such questions are a vital part of doing moral philosophy.

MEANING OF MORAL JUDGEMENT

The moral judgement is the judgement which deals with the moral value or quality of an action.
It is a judgement of value and it evaluates the rightness or wrongness of our actions. When we
analyse a moral judgement then we find that it contains a) a subject which will judge, b) an
object whose action will be judged, c) a standard in conformity to which the action of the subject
will be judged and d) a power of judging the action as required. Moral judgment is the judgment
of moral quality of voluntary habitual actions. Generally, a moral judgment is given on the
voluntary and habitual actions of a rational being. The voluntary actions of a rational person
which involve deliberation, choice, and resolution, have the moral quality of rightness and
wrongness. They are considered to be right or wrong with the reference to the moral standard.
And on the basis of this standard, moral judgment is given. If the voluntary actions have
conformity with the standard or the ideal, then the moral judgment will express it as the right
action. If the action has conflict with the standard or norms, then the moral judgment will express
it as wrong. So, moral judgment involves comparison of voluntary acts with the moral standard.
  Moral judgment is active in nature. Because moral judgment is given upon voluntary and
habitual acts of persons and not upon their passive experiences.

 Moral judgment is social in character. Because, as we know, voluntary acts of a person

are right or wrong, because they more or less affect the of interest of others. Man is a
social being. His rights and duties of actions rise out of his relation to other persons in
society. So, moral judgment, apart from society is inconceivable. Moral judgment can be
said to be obligatory in character. Because a judgment can be given as right, while we
feel the moral obligation to do it. Similarly, moral judgment is given on an act as wrong,
when we feel the moral obligation to refrain from it. Thus, moral judgment is always
accompanied by the sense of duty or moral obligation. And this moral obligation is
essentially self-imposed. In this way, we can find out the meaning of moral judgment.

NATURE OF MORAL JUDGEMENT

Moral judgment is a judgment of values. It is distinct from the judgment of facts. A Judgment of
value is a judgment of “what ought to be”. But a judgment of fact is a judgment of “what is”.
Judgment of fact is a descriptive judgment, while moral judgment is an appreciative or critical
judgment. So, moral judgment is a mental act of pronouncing a particular action to be right or
wrong. According to Mackenzie, moral judgment is not merely to state the nature of some object,
but to compare it with a standard and to pronounce it to be good or evil, right or wrong. So, it is
normative. Muirhead says that moral judgment is concerned with the judgment upon conduct, the
judgment that such and such conduct is right and wrong. The judgment upon conduct has a
judicial sense and the judgment of fact has logical sense. Thus, when we perceive a voluntary
action we compare it with the moral standard and thus judge whether the action is in conformity
with it or not. So, it is clear that, moral judgment is inferential in nature, involving the
application of a standard to a particular action. But in the language of Bradley, ordinarily moral
judgment is intuitive and immediate. Because, we intuitively brings an action under a moral rule
recognized by the community and judge it to be right or wrong. It is only in difficult or doubtful
cases that we consciously compare an action with the moral ideal and judge it as right or wrong.
Hence, we can find out that a moral judgment presupposes a subject, who judges an object that is
judged, a standard according to which an action is judged.

Again, it is important to observe that moral judgment is distinguished from logical and
aesthetical judgment. As we know Ethics, Logic and Aesthetics are normative science. And
accordingly they have three supreme norms and ideals of life. Ethics is concerned with the ideals
of Highest Good, logic is concerned with the ideal of Truth and aesthetics is concerned with the
ideal of Beauty. It is true that all of them are appreciative or critical judgment. But moral
judgments are always accompanied by moral obligation and moral sentiments, which are not
accompanied by logical and aesthetics judgments. When we judge an action to be right, we feel a
moral obligation to perform it and have a feeling of approval. And we judge an action to be
wrong, we feel that under moral obligation we are not to perform it and therefore, we have a
feeling of disapproval. Feeling of approval, disapproval, rightness, wrongness etc. are called
moral sentiments. Thus, moral judgments are obligatory in character and are accompanied by
moral sentiments. So, they differ from logical and aesthetic judgments which are not
accompanied by moral obligation and moral sentiments.
Moral judgements, whether something is good or bad in its own right are contained wholly in the
field of ethics. In the process of reasoning also we find different classes of judgements and they
are usually judgement of facts. But moral judgement as a judgement of value is concerned with
what ought to be. It judges our actions ought to be. It has distinctive features. It is critical
judgement and appreciative. It is the mental act of discerning and pronouncing a particular action
to be right or wrong. After evaluation and deliberation actions are to be judged in conformity
with a standard. ‘To speak the truth is always right’ is a moral judgement. Moral judgement
differs from judgement of fact which is descriptive judgement and it describes what is.
Judgements of facts are more objective because they depend on the real nature of the world. For
example ‘Water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen’.

Moral judgement is inferential in character though the element of inference generally remains
implicit. It involves the application of a standard to a particular action. When we perceive a
voluntary action, we compare it with the moral standard and we judge whether the action is in
conformity with it or not. Ordinarily moral judgements are intuitive and immediate. F.H. Bradley
says that they are intuitive subsumptions. But in complex and doubtful cases the whole process is
becomes explicit and reflective. In complicated circumstances the moral standard is explicitly
held before the mind and applied to the cases under consideration.

How are the moral judgements different from logical judgements?

 Moral judgements are distinguished from logical judgements. Logical judgements refer to
the ideal of Truth and it is merely a judgement about. But moral judgements refer to the
ideal of supreme Good. The supreme Good or the highest Good is the ultimate standard
of moral judgement.
 In moral judgement there is always moral obligation and moral sentiments. Moral
obligation is the sense of duty or oughtness.
 Again, moral judgements are accompanied by a feeling of approval or disapproval,
feeling of complacence or remorse etc. when we judge an action to be right, we feel
under moral obligation to perform it and have a feeling of approval. When we judge an
action to be wrong we feel under moral obligation not to perform it and have a feeling of
disapproval. But all are lacking in logical judgement.
 Mackenzie holds that moral judgement is a judgement upon action with reference to the
moral ideal. For him moral judgement is not like a logical judgement which is a
judgement about an action. He says that moral judgement does not consider the nature of
an action, but it considers its moral value.
 Muirhead says that moral judgement is not a judgement in the logical sense of a
‘proposition’ but that it is a judgement in the judicial sense of a ‘sentence’.

Let us now see how moral judgements differ from Aesthetics judgements.

 Moral judgements are also distinguished from Aesthetic judgements.

 Though moral judgements and aesthetic judgements are the matter of normative sciences,
but their norms are different.
 Moral judgement deals with the ideal of Highest Good whereas aesthetic judgement deals
with the ideal of Beauty.
  Again, aesthetic judgements are not accompanied by moral obligation and moral
sentiments.
 On the other hand moral judgements are obligatory in nature and accompanied by moral
sentiments.
 Moral judgement has objective validity. An action is right in a particular situation from
the standpoint of the universe. It is not determined by the subjective inclination and
prejudices of the person who makes the judgement.

Unit II- Scientific Conduct

1. Ethics with respect to science and research

2. Intellectual honesty and research integrity
3. Scientific misconducts: Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism
4. Redundant Publications: duplicate and overlapping publications, salami slicing
5. Selective reporting and misrepresen tation data
Research Integrity
There are different terms for this area of ethics in research. In this document we are using the
term research integrity, as it is already established in the terminology of competent European
authorities. Other terms are used in Europe and indeed around the world, terms such as “integrity
on scientific research”, “responsible conduct of research”, “code of ethics for science”, “code of
practice for research” and “good scientific practice”. Research integrity is generally understood
to mean the performance of research according to the highest standards of professionalism and
rigour, in an ethically robust manner. The behaviours espoused by ethics and research integrity
should ensure the accuracy and truth of the research recorded in publications and elsewhere1 .
Behaving responsibly and keeping the integrity in research implies that researchers report their
work honestly, accurately, efficiently and objectively. It also requires them to use honest and
verifiable methods in proposing, performing and evaluating research, to report accurate results
with respect to rules, to follow commonly accepted professional norms and not allow personal
bias to influence scientific findings.
Why do we need research integrity?
Education, research and innovation are basic pillars of contemporary advanced society. Due to
immense opportunities in innovation and increasing technological progress, huge expectations
arise – expectations that many needs and ambitions of European society can be fulfilled. We are
surrounded by advanced positive, but also disruptive technological and societal changes initiated
by research. We are dependent on the reliability of the results of scientific work. The outcome
and interpretation of research can be verified by the scientific community, but cannot be verified
by the public - for whom the new knowledge is intended. Therefore, citizens need to have
confidence in researchers. So the first expectation of scientists is that they are reliable. If science
is to remain trustworthy, researchers must lead a positive research culture. They have to follow
basic moral principles and must internalise integrity and honesty3 . The very heart of trust in
science lies in the trustworthiness of its researchers.
Principles of research integrity
The principles that are considered to constitute research integrity vary in different statements and
national policies and also across disciplines. Honesty and reliability appear in nearly every
statement. All European Academies (ALLEA) issued the European Code of Conduct for
Research Integrity. The ALLEA Code formulates 4 main principles: honesty, reliability, respect
and accountability while, for example, the United States ORI Introduction to the Responsible
Conduct of Research involves honesty, accuracy, efficiency and objectivity. The World
Conference on Research Integrity 2010 in Singapore5 defined core principles and responsibilities
in research as follows: » Honesty in all aspects of research, » Accountability in the conduct of
research, » Professional courtesy and fairness in working with others, and » Good stewardship of
research on behalf of others. Among other accepted principles there is objectivity, impartiality
and independence, open communication, duty of care, fairness and responsibility for future
generations of researchers. The norms for integrity on scientific research vary according to
different national cultures, and have specifics and regulations arising from them. There is a need
for increased guidance on how organisations may address research integrity and misconduct6 .
Research institutions are required to comply with commonly accepted professional codes and
norms, and have mechanisms for handling allegations of research misconduct. Education on
good scientific practice is already considered as an unambiguous part of the scientific career
path. However, in most European countries it is still in the process of being established.
Researchers and students at various stages of their career should receive instruction concerning:
conflict of interest, responsible authorship, data management and sharing, as well as policies
regarding the use of human and animal subjects.
Falsification, Fabrication, Plagiarism

Basic Research Misconduct

Known as the three “cardinal sins” of research conduct, falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism
(FFP) are the primary concerns in avoiding research misconduct. Any divergence from these
norms undermines the integrity of research for that individual, lab, university/corporation, and
the field as a whole.

Falsification
Falsification is the changing or omission of research results (data) to support claims, hypotheses,
other data, etc. Falsification can include the manipulation of research instrumentation, materials,
or processes. Manipulation of images or representations in a manner that distorts the data or
“reads too much between the lines” can also be considered falsification.
Fabrication
Fabrication is the construction and/or addition of data, observations, or characterizations that
never occurred in the gathering of data or running of experiments. Fabrication can occur when
“filling out” the rest of experiment runs, for example. Claims about results need to be made on
complete data sets (as is normally assumed), where claims made based on incomplete or
assumed results is a form of fabrication.

Plagiarism
Plagiarism is, perhaps, the most common form of research misconduct. Researchers must be
aware to cite all sources and take careful notes. Using or representing the work of others as your
own work constitutes plagiarism, even if committed unintentionally. When reviewing privileged
information, such as when reviewing grants or journal article manuscripts for peer review,
researchers must recognize that what they are reading cannot be used for their own purposes
because it cannot be cited until the work is published or publicly available.

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
Some research behaviors are so at odds with the core principles of science that they are treated
very harshly by the scientific community and by institutions that oversee research. Anyone who
engages in these behaviors is putting his or her scientific career at risk and is threatening the
overall reputation of science and the health and welfare of the intended beneficiaries of research.
Collectively these actions have come to be known as scientific misconduct. A statement
developed by the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy, which has been adopted by
most research-funding agencies, defines misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism
in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.” According to
the statement, the three elements of misconduct are defined as follows:
 Fabrication is “making up data or results.”
 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.”
 Plagiarism is “the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words
without giving appropriate credit.”
In addition, the federal statement says that to be considered research misconduct, actions must
represent a “significant departure from accepted practices,” must have been “committed
intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly,” and must be “proven by a preponderance of
evidence.” According to the statement, “research misconduct does not include differences of
opinion.”
Some research institutions and research-funding agencies define scientific research misconduct
more broadly. These institutional definitions may add, for example, abuse of confidentiality in
peer review, failure to allocate credit appropriately in scientific publications, not observing
regulations governing research, failure to report misconduct, or retaliation against individuals
who report misconduct to the list of behaviors that are considered misconduct. In addition, the
National Science Foundation has retained a clause in its misconduct policies that includes
behaviors that seriously deviate from commonly accepted research practices as possible
misconduct.

Redundant publication and salami slicing: the significance of splitting data

When researchers are under pressure to constantly increase the number of publications to their
name, the temptation to split one set of results, or data set, into many articles is understandable.
Though alluring, this is generally considered unethical practice. Whilst not such a serious
problem as fraud or plagiarism, such over‐publishing wastes the time of editors and reviewers
(refereeing multiple articles, etc.), and may mislead the readers as well as waste their time.
Producing many articles from a moderately sized research project might give it undue
significance – something which could initially appear beneficial to the research team responsible.
But splitting the data into segments may also affect the statistical significance of each part and
possibly undermine the findings themselves, thus changing an important result into several
moderately interesting results.

Such splitting of results to produce multiple papers is called redundant publication or salami
slicing, and is sometimes derisively described as the least publishable unit.

Redundant publication is not a new problem, as evidenced in a 1995 editorial from the New
England Journal of Medicine: ‘Nobody is well served by the practice of reporting the same study
in two journals, publishing a review of the same subject nearly simultaneously in two journals, or
splitting a study into two or more parts and submitting each to separate journals.’1 The editorial
also acknowledged justifiable reasons for redundant publication; for example, wishing to reach
different audiences. Other justifications may include a desire for a longer discussion on one
aspect of the results than is allowed in the standard article word count.

It is very difficult to estimate the prevalence of redundant publication (or redundancy), as the
basic plagiarism‐checking tools will often not find it. But the CV of any researcher will identify
if they have followed the route of least publishable unit, or collated their research into larger,
more impactful articles.

Whilst the practice of generating inflated numbers of articles is generally frowned upon, it
changes from being an irritation to unethical behaviour when later papers ignore earlier ones, and
do not acknowledge that they stem from the same research. Such declaration is needed for the
same reasons that Conflict of Interest statements are required – to provide transparency.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)2 places emphasis on citation in their definition of
redundant publication: ‘When the same (or substantially overlapping) data is presented in more
than one publication without adequate cross‐referencing/justification, particularly when this is
done in such a way that reviewers/readers are unlikely to realise that most or all the findings
have been published before.’

Authors must decide how best to write up their research, where to submit it, and which audiences
they want to reach. They could decide to split their data into several articles rather than one3 and
their decision may be valid and reasonable. However, they should have a good reason for their
decision and be prepared to declare it. If they are not prepared to do this, then unfortunately it
will be assumed that there was no good reason.4 Also, if they do not cite the other works based
on the same research, this implies a certain amount of duplicity and even a wish to mislead the
readers.

Authors need to carefully consider their publication strategy and consider both long‐ and short‐
term repercussions. Redundant publication or salami slicing might appear immediately
rewarding, but in the longer term may undermine a reputation – and without due
acknowledgement can directly harm it.

Selective reporting and misrepresen tation data

Data publication and reporting is the process of preparing and disseminating research findings
to the scientific community. Scholarly disciplines can only advance through dissemination and
review of research findings at professional meetings and publications in discipline-related
journals. The tacit assumption in publishing is one of trust between the author(s) and readers
regarding the accuracy and truthfulness of any submission.

The practice of ensuring research integrity is relevant at all stages of research investigation, from
early conceptualization, design, implementation, to analysis. This practice also extends to the
stage of documenting and preparing results for publication. In this process, researchers may
experience many more challenges to preserving research integrity.

Considerations/issues in data reporting and publishing

There are often factors in research settings that can result in compromises to data integrity. These
factors may facilitate conditions where the goal of conducting research in as objective a manner
as possible can sometimes be challenged. These can be categorized as either external or internal
factors as follows:

External Factors:

 Publication pressure
  Professional competition
 Job security
 Lack of formal mentoring
 Unclear guidelines
 Lack of penalties
 Little chance of getting caught
 Bad examples from mentors (Price, Drake, Islam, 2001)

Internal Factors:

 Individual ego or vanity

 Personal financial gain
 Psychiatric illness (Weed, 1998)
 Incompetence
 Sloppy writing/reporting

Importance of accurate and honest data reporting

Investigators demonstrating lapses of integrity while engaged in data reporting and publishing
can have a negative influence in the direction of future research efforts, threaten to compromise
the credibility of a particular field of study, and may ultimately risk the well-being and safety of
the public in general, as well as research subjects in particular.

Sources of guidance promoting good data reporting practices and publishing include faculty
advisors who carefully instruct graduate students, departmental chairpersons mentoring
researchers new to the field, regular review of published university policies, existing codes of
professional ethics, or established government rules and regulations. Deficiencies in training or a
lack of awareness of existing policies, codes, or rules may increase the likelihood of a deviation
from the acceptable standards of practice in reporting and publishing.

Listed below are some issues related to integrity of data reporting and publication:

Misrepresentation

Due to problems data in collection, researchers may omit data that is not supportive of the
research hypothesis. Alternately, data may be fabricated if the data collection process was
somehow interrupted or data was lost, and the researchers believe the invented data would have
been similar to what was anticipated. In either case, the true scope of the data findings remains
hidden from readers who are unable to accurately assess the validity of the findings.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the act of taking credit for ideas or data that rightfully belongs to others. Related to
this is the theft of ideas from grants and drafts of papers that a researcher has reviewed. This
harms the researcher(s) from which the idea(s) or data was appropriated improperly
acknowledged.
Selectivity of reporting / failure to report all pertinent data

This is the practice of only using data that supports one’s research hypothesis and ignoring or
omitting data that does not. A related practice is inaccurate reporting of missing data points. As
explained under “Misrepresentation” earlier, the true scope of the data findings remains hidden
from readers who are unable to accurately assess the validity of the findings.

Failure to disclose conflicts of interest

Editors, reviewers, or readers who are not aware of possible conflicts of interest (financial and
otherwise) may not have an opportunity to adequately assess the validity of research findings
without being aware of possible undue influences from the sponsors of an investigation. These
conflicts may compromise researchers’ credibility in their fields.

Publication bias / neglecting negative results

Since the vast majority of research findings submitted to professional journals tend to be
‘positive’ in nature, the literature in most scientific fields demonstrates a negative bias. This in
part reflects the reluctance of journal editors to publish articles with negative findings. Thus,
researchers are less willing to report findings that fail to demonstrate an intended effect or yield
an expected result. The value of these publications could be substantial in that other investigators
would not needlessly pursue a fruitless path of research.

Analysis of data by several methods to find a significant result

This is also known as ‘milking’ or ‘dredging the data’ and involves researchers utilizing a
variety of statistical tests in the hopes of yielding a significant result. The proper procedure
would be to base the selection of desired tests on a theory or theoretical framework rather than
selecting tests a priori. Other related statistical issues include reporting percentages rather than
absolute numbers due to small sample size, reporting differences when statistical significance is
not reached suggesting a certain trend exists, reporting no difference when statistical power is
inadequate, and failure to include the total number of eligible participants. The importance of this
last point is the difficulty for readers to be able to determine whether a dismal non-respondent
rate might compromise the representativeness of respondents.

Inadequate evaluation of prior research

This refers to an insufficient review of available literature that presents an incomplete picture of
the current status of a particular research area. A critique of the included citations may lack the
required depth of analysis and fail to justify the need for proposed research.

Ignoring citations or prior work that challenge stated conclusions or call current findings into
question

Selective inclusion of citations that minimize threats to the justification for the present study can
compromise the integrity of the study. Whether done intentionally or not, omissions can have the
untoward consequence of providing support for an author’s position.

Misleading discussion of observations

This may result from using inappropriate statistical tests, neglecting negative results, omitting
missing data points, failing to report actual numbers of eligible subjects, using inappropriate
graph labels or terminology, and data dredging. These can result in readers becoming less able to
objectively critique the findings.

Reporting conclusions that are not supported

Faulty data collection, inappropriate analyses, gaps in logic, and unexplained deviation from
conventionally accepted methods of interpretation can result in conclusions that are not valid.
Readers cannot assess the validity of the conclusions for themselves unless all the necessary
information is honestly reported.

Breaking down of a single piece of research into multiple overlapping reports

This can occur when the distinction and differences in findings between reports is negligible and
the focus is publishing for quantity versus quality. A related practice is submission of duplicate
publications in journal from different disciplines or in different languages. The expectation is
that investigators would not read journal from different fields of study or languages. Literature
reviews or meta-analyses that are conducted may lead to an inaccurate assessment of findings
from a particular research area due to duplicate publications of the same study in different
journals.

Just Attribution of Authorship

Publication disputes generally fall into four categories(Ritter, Washington, 2001):

1. a researcher is listed as an author but did not have a chance to review or approve the
manuscript
2. a researcher is promised first authorship when the project is completed, but the principal
investigator adds the work of someone else, who then becomes first author
3. a researcher claims first authorship on the basis of the amount of work he or she did when
not given that recognition, and
4. after leaving a laboratory, a researcher does not receive credit in an article that includes
his or her work. Related to this is submission of manuscripts not seen and reviewed by all
the listed co-authors of a publication

A fair and equitable understanding of each author’s contribution to published research provides
clear credit and acknowledgement for advancing a field of study.

Inappropriate use of terminology without precise definitions

A potential barrier to successful cross-disciplinary investigations is the use of field-specific
terminology. Encouraging the use of precise definitions can reduce confusion and promote
understanding of research conducted.

Inflation of research results for the media

This involves providing statements for public and not professional consumption that are
insufficiently supported by data for the purpose of publishing un-reviewed or untested results in
a non-scientific or non-scholarly magazine/media. Premature reporting of results that turn out to
be unsubstantiated may compromise the credibility of a particular field.

Publishing in peer-reviewed journals or presenting in scholarly meetings is the primary

mechanism for investigators to disseminate their findings to the research community. This
community relies on authors(s) to report the events of a study honestly and accurately. All
researchers should be aware of the issues that compromise the integrity of data reporting and
publishing. Ensuring integrity is essential to promoting the credibility of all fields of study.