Lecture Notes DRP 901 RPE Unit 02

01
DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

• Unit II: Scientific Conduct
• Scientific misconducts:
• Falsification
• Fabrication,
• Plagiarism
• Redundant Publications:
• Duplicate and overlapping publications,
• Salami slicing
• Selective reporting
• Misrepresentation of data Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan
Addl. Dean (Research)
02

• Scientific misconduct:
• In recent years, the international scientific community has been
rocked by a number of serious cases of research misconduct.
• Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes
of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the publication of
scientific research
Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

03

• Scientific misconduct:
• Other Definitions (of Scientific Misconduct)
• Intentional distortion of the research process by fabrication of data,
text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript
form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other
ways
• Intention or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific
message or a false credit given to a scientist
04

• Scientific misconduct –continued …..
• Investigators violates widely-accepted ethical standards.
• Severe violations are classified as research misconduct.
• Because misconduct can significantly undermine the integrity of
research, legal or other penalties may be imposed on individuals for
the misconduct.

05

• Scientific misconduct –continued …..
• In Summary
Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or
plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in
reporting research results

06

• Falsification, Fabrication, Plagiarism
• Reference:
• Eungoo KANG, Hee-Joong HWANG 2020 Journal of Research and
Publication Ethics Vol 1 No 2 pp: 7-10

07
DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics UNIT 02

• Academic research is a step by step process involving key elements
of the research studies.
• The common elements include study design, data collection and
analysis process.
• The analyzed data is therefore published by appropriate body

08

• The experience by a researcher highlighted steps are guided by a
specific ethical codes of conduct.
• The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is the responsible body
mandated with the task of developing appropriate code of conducts
• As an international forum, COPE also guides other key stakeholders
of research studies which include editors and publishers.

09

• The experience by a researcher highlighted steps are guided by a
specific ethical codes of conduct.
• The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is the responsible body
mandated with the task of developing appropriate code of conducts
• As an international forum, COPE also guides other key stakeholders
of research studies which include editors and publishers.

10

• Falsification
• Falsification refers to the practice of changing or omitting the
collected data to present an incorrect research result.
• This is common among the scientific researchers where the
laboratory assistance tries to please their bosses by providing data
they believe or desire to achieve

11

• Fabrication
• Fabrication is commonly referred to as the act of making up data
and reporting the make-up data as the correct data.
• This is common among the interviewers and researchers of the
study

12

• Plagiarism
• Plagiarism is the appropriation or using another's idea without
giving proper editing.
• Proper editing, in this case, includes a proper citation or proper
quotation of the original document.
• Commonly, it occurs when an individual performs an unoriginal
study and recycled the already published words to describe the fake
study
13

• In summary
• Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
• 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.
References:
http://vpred.uark.edu/Research_Scholarly_Misconduct.pdf

14

• Reference
• http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase.html
• http://www4.caes.hku.hk/plagiarism/Techniques_2.htm
• Misconduct of Research (Plagiarism, Fabrication, Falsefication) by
Khaled Y. Kamal, Texas A&M University
15

• Plagiarism –continued….
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Technique1:
• Paraphrasing(re-write in your own words)
• Technique2:
• Follow the rules when copying directly from text or any other
source(e.g., internet).
16

• Case Study 01
• A Researcher was reading his samples on a spectrophotometer.
• Duplicate measurements were carried out on , each sample .
• During his reading the electricity was on and off at different time intervals.
• When he had finished he noticed that readings of some duplicates did not
resemble each other.
• He decided to only select the reading in the same range as those reported in
some famous publication and show these to his supervisor.

17

• What are the types of misconduct here ? Why?
• In the case Study 01

18

• Case Study 02
• A Researcher is a member of a lab group in which everyone uses
variations of the same experimental methods.
• In the first draft of her dissertation, the researcher appropriated
original phrases from one of her mentor’s publications to describe
her experimental methods.
• The Researcher was not concerned because she knew that her
mentor used exactly the same wording in multiple publications.
19

• Case Study 02 –continued
• 1-Is this plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or serious deviation?
• 2-What consequences could be facing by the Researcher?
• 3-How could these problem be prevented?

20

• Case Study 03
• A researcher obtained funding from the XYZ corporation to support his
research.
• XYZ expects that research will demonstrate effectiveness of their
product.
• Research does show that the product works, but there are side effects.
• In an effort to help secure continued funding, the researcher chooses to
publish only those findings that satisfy XYZ’s expectations, ignoring the
side effects.
21

• Case Study 03 –continued
• 1-Is this plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or serious deviation?
• 2-What consequences could be facing by the Researcher?
• 3-How could these problem be prevented?

22

• Make a group discussion cases of misconduct from your known
circle and suggest how to avoid such misconduct in bullet points

22

24

 Unit II: Scientific Misconduct
 Scientific Misconducts
 Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism (FFP)
 Redundant Publications:
 Duplicate and overlapping Publications
 Salami Silicing
 Selective reporting and Misrepresentation of data
25

 Salami Slicing

26

• Redundant publication is publication that overlaps substantially
with one already
• It is also referred as “self-plagiarism,”
• It is a violation of publishing ethics.

27

 Redundant Publications: Why it occurs
• Redundant publication is most likely the result of pressure to publish
• Authors divide their findings from a single study into minimally
publishable pieces.
• Publishing the same information twice or more is a problem in many
ways.

28

 Redundant Publications:-Continued ……
 Penalties of Redundant Publication
• If redundancy is recognized before publication, manuscripts are rejected.
• If articles have already been published and then found to be redundant the visible penalties
are:
• publication of a notice of duplicate publication in Journals,
• Notification, to` the authors’ employers, and
• Informed and notified in indexes like scopus, pebmed etc
• Cancellation of Ph.D. for life time
29

• In extreme cases, one of the redundant articles might be retracted, even
after publication.
• Editors usually ask authors for a written statement about the
• redundancy to be published with the notice of duplicate publication.

30

• Authors’ dilemmas can lead to redundant publication:
• (a)Publishing papers from a dissertation
• (b) a researcher reporting on a longitudinal level
• (c) an author writing in different languages (translation) without
concern
• (d) an author writing for different audiences.
31

 How to avoid Redundant Publication
• Keep track of copyrights to all work.
• Discover if your institution has a repository and get the rules and
policies.
• Discover if your institution submits federally funded articles to open
source repositories.
• Track the publication or dissemination of your abstracts, teaching files,
and lecture notes. Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan
32

 How to avoid Redundant Publication
• If you submit an abstract to a meeting for presentation, be sure you do
not use the text, figures, or details of the data in a future manuscript—
or—if you must, get the copyright released to you and reference the
prior work.
• If you have any questions, transparency is your best option, ask the
editor of the journal how to handle any potential issues before
submitting your manuscript.
33

 When Redundant Publication is allowed:
1. Proper Citation
2. Permission
3. Open source
4. Guidelines/rules (unless copy write)
5. Presenting (not eventually publishing) work in the several
conferences
34

 Salami Slicing

35

• Authors should not submit the same manuscript, in the same or
different languages, simultaneously to more than one journal.
• The rationale for this standard is the potential for disagreement
when two (or more) journals claim the right to publish a manuscript
that has been submitted simultaneously to more than one journal

36

• The possibility that two or more journals will unknowingly and
unnecessarily undertake the work of peer review, edit the same
manuscript, and publish the same article.

37

• Duplicate publication in the academic context also called ‘Double-
dipping’.
• Duplicate publication has a direct counterpart in the area of
academic dishonesty.
• It occurs when a student submits a whole paper, or a substantial
portion of a paper that had been previously submitted and graded in
another course to fulfill aCourse
requirement of a new course.
Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan
38

• Many scholars and even some supervisors are not aware that this
type of practice is a serious academic offense
• Of course, as is the case with duplicate publication, submitting the
same paper or a large portion of a paper, to two different courses is
entirely acceptable if the student sought permission from the
instructors of both courses and they both agreed to the
arrangement. Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan
39

 Note! Translations of articles without proper permission or
notification and resubmission of previously published Open Access
articles are considered duplications.
 For further reading:
 https://ijdvl.com/duplicate-publication-what-an-editor-ca
n-do/
40

 Note! Translations of articles without proper permission or
notification and resubmission of previously published Open Access
articles are considered duplications.
 For further reading:
 https://ijdvl.com/duplicate-publication-what-an-editor-ca
n-do/
41

• This is the definition of duplicate publication by the Committee on
Publication Ethics (COPE):
• “When a published work (or substantial sections from a published
work) is/are published more than once (in the same or another
language) without adequate acknowledgment of the source/cross-
referencing/justification”.

42

 Salami Slicing
• Publishing small ‘slices’ of research in several different papers is
called ‘salami publication’ or ‘salami slicing’.
• Salami slicing can result in a distortion of the literature by leading
• unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each ‘slice’ is
derived
43

 Salami Slicing - How to prevent it
• Avoid inappropriately breaking up data from a single study into two or more
papers.
• When submitting a paper, be transparent.
• Send copies of any manuscripts closely related to the manuscript under
consideration.
• This includes any manuscripts published, recently submitted, or already
accepted,
44

 Salami Slicing - How to prevent it
• When in doubt, always consult with your professor, advisor, or
someone in a position of authority who can guide you to the right
course of action.

45

 Avoiding 'Selective Reporting' In Your Research Findings
 One of the most common forms of bias is known as ‘selective
reporting.’
 It’s an act of omitting data that doesn’t seem significant, but
without a full analysis of why the researcher chose that particular
set of data to eliminate, there could be underlying bias going on.

46

 Scholars must always be aware of and alert for instances of
potential bias in their work, especially when selective reporting
could occur, and work towards purposely avoiding all bias in their
research findings.

47

• Types of Biases
• Design bias
• Procedural bias
• Personal biases

48

• Refer class discussion for Types of biases

49

• Selective Reporting also called “outcome reporting bias,” selective
reporting is a common problem in research. It can take the shape of
many different skewed results, but some of the main types of this
bias

50

 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.’ Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan
51

• Refer the class discussion for examples

52

• The misrepresentation of research findings may arise for a number of
reasons. It may be wilful, dishonest, accidental, partisan, political,
ignorant, biased, careless or any combination of these.

53

• Are the research aims properly explained?
• Is the methodology clearly set out?
• Is the literature review relevant and up to date?
• Is there information on sample sizes and how they were selected?
• Is there information on response rates?

54

• Was there checking of accuracy of data returns?
• Is their adequate information about how data was processed?
• Is there a rationale given for the analysis methods and statistical
tests chosen?
• Are the conclusions and interpretations justified by the evidence?


Lecture Notes DRP 901 RPE Unit 02

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture Notes DRP 901 RPE Unit 02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

01

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics UNIT 02

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics UNIT 02

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics UNIT 02

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics UNIT 02

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics UNIT 02

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics UNIT 02

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics UNIT 02

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

Course Instructor : Prof.Dr.A.G.Srinivasan

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics

DRP 901 - Research and Publication Ethics