eBook

Safeguarding research
integrity and standards
in a changing research
landscape
A free guide from Turnitin

www.turnitin.com
Contents
Introduction 03

Teaching value-based ethics to prevent research

misconduct: the case for early education 05

Mobilising research integrity standards to support

the growth in research collaboration 07

Types of research plagiarism 10

Exploring the impact of research misconduct

in light of Kyoto University’s PhD revocation case 11

What is the impact of self-plagiarism for researchers? 14

Why fake journals exist: How to avoid them

and uphold research integrity 16

Integrity Matters episodes 21

02
Introduction
How is research integrity evolving as researchers, publishers, universities, and society
at large, navigate ongoing changes to research practice and competition in the research
landscape? Furthermore, why does it matter? To begin to answer this, we can look to
the Covid-19 pandemic as a major catalyst for disruption across research and publishing
traditions; though many would agree that change was taking root even earlier.

In 2020, when research communities first united against the global threat of the Covid-19
virus through cross-institution and cross-border collaboration and sharing of research
output, it signalled an inflection point for the accessibility, transparency and speed of
research findings. For instance, the abundance of preprints to expedite research publication
in response to the health emergency sought to secure public good and tangible solutions
through research innovation and commercialisation. This collective research effort can also
be seen to leverage principles of the growing ‘open access’ research model, aimed at putting
scientific knowledge and benefit in the hands of the people rather than obscuring it within
academic circles and publishing gatekeepers.

Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape 03

As we have witnessed in the face of a global health crisis, being able to identify trustworthy
research has become even more important and scrutinised, to separate fact from fiction.
Regardless of whether we see long-term adoption of preprints and open access research
beyond a pandemic context or outside of medical disciplines, a key question remains. How
can we uphold responsible research conduct and promote principles of integrity amidst
expectations of increased volume and speed of research output?

For universities, research collaboration and commercialisation are growing priorities to

help boost impact factor, contribute to revenue goals, and cultivate a national or global
reputation for innovation. Indeed, the opportunity for research collaboration through
partnerships and industry affiliations has flourished in a digitally-enabled era. On the flip
side, so have the risks for deliberate or inadvertent integrity breaches throughout the
research process, spanning data collection to research-writing and publication authorship.

In this ebook, we explore discourse and developments in the research space as it relates
to responsible research conduct, using the Asia Pacific region as a particular frame of
reference. Recognising that research integrity is a collective endeavour that requires a
collective response, we also unpack factors of individual researcher due diligence and values
as instrumental to the strength of the research community.

Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape 04

Teaching value-based ethics to
prevent research misconduct:
the case for early education
Research is governed by a set of rules or principles - both explicit and implicit - that ensure
the ethicality of research efforts within the academic community. And when an individual
becomes a researcher, it is understood their behaviour builds upon their previous education
and schooling experience. This background invariably informs their approach to truth-
seeking and scientific discovery, and will presumably set them on the right path. But what if
previous experiences undermine the practice of honesty in research, instead of
supporting it?

The link between research researchers will conduct their work, compared to
formal training programs on research integrity in
integrity and personal values adulthood. The qualitative study by Priya Satalkar &

A researcher, or any person for that matter, doesn’t David Shaw sampled researchers from 5 universities in

make a lasting commitment to ethical practice Switzerland across three seniority levels, to gauge their

without understanding and subscribing to the values own perceptions on key influences for their attitudes

that underpin it. Honesty. Trust. Fairness. Respect. and behaviours towards ethical research. Conroy

Responsibility. Courage. These 6 values, which form writes that “while around 40% of the respondents

the International Centre for Academic Integrity’s (ICAI) believed that research integrity training should be

definition of academic and research integrity, give included in undergraduate courses, they argued that

meaning to ethical frameworks that guide academics applying these concepts to lab work demanded an

and researchers in their pursuit of knowledge. And innate sense of honesty and fairness.”

these values go beyond the academic or research

context, penetrating all areas of our lives from early
childhood. Values are deep-seated by nature, and their
absence is equally powerful. It stands to reason that
many values related to research integrity are formed
well before one inhabits the role of researcher; carried
forward into adulthood from the subjective experience
and personality traits.
In the provocatively titled article ‘Is research integrity
training a waste of time?’, author Gemma Conroy
references the aforementioned Swiss study as it
relates to the notion that childhood education and
personality traits are a better predictor of how ethically
Research integrity values
versus norms
When pinning down one’s motivation to act ethically
in research, another consideration is values versus
norms, and whether the two get conflated. Studies
in social dynamics have made the distinction that
values are understood as “what one finds important
in life”, whereas norms motivate humans on the basis
of accepted and rewarded behaviour in a group or
society. Research norms and policies are pivotal in
guiding researchers to follow protocols for research

Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape 05

rigour and publish trustworthy research, but they
don’t capture the full story. This is illustrated in a 2019
study by a group of researchers from the Netherlands,
who explored the limitations of research guidelines,
stemming from the premise that “codes of conduct
typically do not specify how to handle situations where
different norms pull in different directions”.
The idea that sustained values of research integrity
run deeper than prescribed norms is alluded to in US
chemist and educator Joel H. Hildebrand’s assertion:
“[Scientists] proceed by common sense and integrity.
There are no rules, only the principles of integrity and
objectivity, with a complete rejection of all authority
except that of fact” [source]. Alongside these ‘rules’
manifest in research codes of conduct, the implication
is that personally-held values or principles are the
driving force behind commitments to research
integrity. Of course, this is not to say that research
values are immune to corruptibility.
Research interest risks
The nature of the beast means that research
interests are rarely clear-cut and can frequently be
in competition, causing ethical conflicts for individual
researchers as they navigate stakeholder expectations.
Misconduct creeping into research can take many
forms, but the Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism
(FFP) grouping of academic misconduct known as the
trinity of research deceit, gets the most attention. And
when push comes to shove — with research funding
and institutional reputation on the line — what makes
some researchers take the moral ‘high road’, however
inconvenient, while others overlook norms and bend
the rules for personal or institutional gain?
In their landmark study, Priya Satalkar and David Shaw
found that the rationale for their interviewees’ resolve
to act with integrity even in the face of adversity,
involved long-held values from childhood tied to their
self-worth. It led to their somewhat bleak conclusion
that “while it is possible to teach researchers at this
[PhD] stage research integrity rules, it might be far
too late to imbue them with integrity that they do
not already have.” and young researchers.
Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape
It’s a sentiment echoed in a recent 2021 study which
determined that introducing research integrity
information for the first time at the PhD level is “far
too late to be relevant” and must be carried forth from
a researcher’s previous experiences. It would appear
that attention must turn to institutions helping prime
researchers throughout their professional career,
irrespective of the strength of their personal
value framework.
Positive, proactive research
integrity measures
If you’re an avid reader in the academic community,
you may have noticed that the topic of research
integrity generally only arises in the news when it is
negatively framed; the result of a breach of research
conduct, rather than a demonstration of good research
practice. In a 2018 study by David Shaw and Priya
Satalka on researchers’ interpretations of research
integrity, it was found that although a small number
of participants defined research integrity narrowly in
terms of the ‘absence of misconduct’, most interpreted
integrity far more holistically. However, just because a
subset of researchers may appreciate the value-driven
nature of acting ethically, that doesn’t necessarily
mean our institutional structures are set up to support
a culture of positive research integrity.
The concept of positive research integrity is explored
in another recent 2021 study focused on research
integrity dialogue and discourse, which describes it as
a “positive approach in building a culture of research
and scientific ethics based on values and good
research practices, promoting exemplary behaviours
and fostering public trust.” The authors observe its
limited use in favour of risk aversion tactics to deter
research misconduct, and evaluate strategies for
teaching research integrity in ways that offer greater
potential for ethical behaviours to thrive. According to
them, proactive discussions that encourage the sharing
of ‘judgements and rationales’ make the issue of
research integrity more personally relatable and opens
the door for opinion change amongst pupils, students
06
Mobilising research integrity
standards to support the growth
in research collaboration
The 2020-2022 pandemic era has presented many disruptions to the practical undertaking
of research, and in some cases, resource allocation and funding for institutions of higher
learning and their industry affiliates. That being said, it has also presented unique
opportunities to pivot research efforts and engage in remote collaboration across borders —
feeding into broader movements over the past decade to strengthen research scope.

The task at hand for universities in maximising their return on research publication looms
large. It means addressing factors such as researcher self-regulation versus independent
oversight, authorship in increasingly layered, multi-authored work, international research
principles to preserve integrity, and innovation through R&D. Let’s canvass some
developments in expanding transparency and collaboration in the practice of research, with
particular reference to the Asia-Pacific context.

Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape 07

The value of research this is an asymmetry in developed versus less
developed economies according to their investment
collaboration in R&D, making cross border or cross cultural

Boosting research collaboration means addressing collaborations more difficult. Case in point, in the

traditional mechanisms and benchmarks that are Philippines, academics cite poor university support

not necessarily keeping pace with new expectations. and entrepreneurial ability as key factors in the lack

In her assessment of the current state of play and of research commercialisation. Fortunately, there is

opportunities for research improvements, Dorothy

​​ change afoot, as outlined in the ASEAN 2025 blueprint

Bishop, a professor at the University of Oxford, for national innovation, which includes strategies

remarks on how “our funding and reward systems to develop partnerships between academia and the

still tend to implicitly envisage a single scientist private sector.

working alone. But times have moved on and we
need to recognise that bringing together groups with
complementary skills, possibly distributed across
several centres, is a good way of fostering research
that is both reproducible and replicable.”
For a research community beholden in some form
to the pressures of a ‘publish or perish’ mentality,
collaboration offers unity and strength in numbers to
execute on research ambitions via alignment of skills,
reputation and funding. It may also encourage us to
abandon the fixation on research quantity in favour
of research quality and relevance, with Roslyn Prinsley
from Australian National University suggesting that
the narrative is now shifting to the more appropriate
concept of ‘collaborate or crumble’.
And to illustrate the flip side of the Philippines context
is the South Korea experience. A country with a highly
developed R&D program that accounts for 4.5% of the
nation’s GDP (at time of writing), South Korea recorded
the greatest share of researchers (among 71 countries)
who transitioned from industry into academia in
2017 to 2019. One commentator has described their
investment efforts as a “close collaboration between
government, industry, and the academic community in
the process of nation building” [source]. The Australian
government appears to have taken a page from this
playbook, with their recent funding announcement of
$2 billion as part of a plan to foster stronger linkages
between Australian universities and industries; dubbed
the ‘economic accelerator’.

Research commercialisation
Research commercialisation is a movement long in the
making, and reinvigorated by institutions reassessing
their revenue streams due to pandemic-led disruption.
The significance of commercialising research goes
beyond fame and funding; cutting to the core of why
research discoveries are sought in the first place — to
offer solutions for global problems and benefit society.

However, a hurdle exists in which researchers are

taught how to do good science, but not how to do
The value of research
business, warranting better education programs for
researchers on how to recognise viable research
collaboration
commercialisation opportunities and help them
network their research to industry sectors and
other players in the ecosystem. Compounding

Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape 08

Addressing the inherent risks in
collaborative research-writing
Researcher due diligence in the research-writing
process is still the cornerstone of publishing
responsible research. And it’s no surprise that multiple
authors add complexity and layers of accountability
to research projects. In fact, a recent study suggests
approximately 94% of the retracted papers from
the Web of Science core collection in the last three
decades were multi-authored. Issues of authorship are
often exposed late — in the submission and publishing
phase — and one could argue are the product of
hierarchies and convention as it relates to research
impact factor.
In the recent Perspectives on Research Integrity in
Science and Medicine (PRISM) project by Priya Satalkar
and David Shaw, they charted the experience of
researchers in the fields of life sciences and medicine.
The top occurring lapse of research integrity according
to participants was related to ‘unjustified authorship’ in
manuscripts, which is described as follows: “excluding
researchers who deserved to be authors, offering
guest authorship to influential researchers in the
field to improve chances of being published and
manipulating sequence or order of authors which was
not always in line with the contribution made rethink how researchers are assessed and rewarded
by individuals.”
So, how can researchers navigate the integrity risks
inherent within research collaboration projects and
publication of multi-authored work? We posed this
question to Australian-based academics Dr Daniel Barr
and Dr David Blades as part of our Integrity Matters
vidcast, who advocate for transparent research
practices that are established up front, relating to
agreed methodology, where data is kept, assigned
authorship and where work is to be published.
Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape
Mediating self-regulation and
independent oversight
Actively involved in bringing about a shift from rules-
based doctrines to principle-based documents to
foster research responsibility, Dr Daniel Barr and
Dr David Blades suggest there is potentially more
to be gained from a positive, educative approach
to research integrity as opposed to one of policing
and punishment. It begs the question: what might
a balance of these approaches look like? One such
possibility is detailed in a study from the University
of South Australia, which found value in academic
integrity software to facilitate the ways scholars work
collaboratively with each other and harness other
people's texts to “recreate meanings and develop
original contributions”.
Finally, there’s the matter of addressing conflicting
research interests in the research ecosystem that
send mixed messages to researchers. Dorothy Bishop
comments on this tension and the need to address
structural impediments to research integrity: “Clearly,
something is wrong in a system where so many
young researchers feel there’s a mismatch between
doing good science and having a successful career”.
It’s proving to be a pivotal phase in research as we
throughout the research lifecycle to uphold
research integrity.
09
Types of
research plagiarism
Decoding plagiarism and attribution
Less serious

Secondary Source
AKA Inaccurate Citation
1
Commonness: 6.9/10

Secondary Source Plagiarism happens when a researcher

2
uses a secondary source, like a meta study, but only cites
the primary sources contained within the secondary one.
Secondary source plagiarism not only fails to attribute
Invalid Source
AKA Misleading Citation, Fabrication,
the work of the authors of the secondary sources, but
also provides a false sense of the amount Falsification
of review that went into the research. Commonness: 3.9/10

3
Invalid Source Attribution occurs when researchers
Duplication reference either an incorrect or nonexistent source.
Author
AKA Self-Plagiarism, Reuse Though this may be the result of sloppy research rather
Me
than an intent to deceive, it can also be an attempt to
Commonness: 6.3/10
increase the list of references and hide inadequate
research.
Duplication happens when a researcher reuses work

4
from their own previous studies and papers without
attribution. The ethics of duplication is highly debated, Paraphrasing
and often depends upon the content copied.
AKA Plagiarism, Intellectual Theft
Commonness: 7.5/10

Paraphrasing is taking another person’s writing and

5
changing the words, making it appear that an idea
Repetitive Research or even a piece of research is original when, in truth,
it came from an uncited outside source. Paraphrasing
Author
AKA Self-Plagiarism, Reuse
Me 7.1/10 ranges from simple rephrasing to completely rewriting
Commonness:
content while maintaining the original idea or concept.

Repetitive Research Plagiarism is the repeating of data

6
or text from a similar study with a similar methodology
in a new study without proper attribution. This often Replication
happens when studies on a related topic are repeated Author
AKA Author Submission Violation
with similar results, but the earlier research Me
Commonness: 4.2/10
is not cited properly.

Replication is the submission of a paper to multiple

7
publications, resulting in the same manuscript being
Misleading Attribution published more than once. This can be an ethical
AKA Inaccurate Authorship infraction, particularly when a researcher claims that
Author
a paper is new when it has been published elsewhere.
Me Commonness: 4.8/10
Author
Me
Misleading Attribution is an inaccurate or insufficient

8
list of authors who contributed to a manuscript. This
happens when authors are denied credit for partial or
significant contributions made to a study, or the opposite
Unethical Collaboration
AKA Inaccurate Authorship
- when authors are cited in a paper although
Commonness: 5.3/10
no contributions were made.

Unethical Collaboration happens when people who

9
are working together violate a code of conduct. Using
Verbatim Plagiarism written work, outcomes and ideas that are the result
AKA Copy-and-Paste, Intellectual Theft of a collaboration, without citing the collaborative nature
of the study and participants involved, is unethical. Using
Commonness: 2.3/10
others’ work without proper attribution is plagiarism.
Author
VerbatimMe Plagiarism is the copying of another’s words

10
and works without providing proper attribution,
indentation or quotation marks. This can take two forms.
First, plagiarists may cite the source they borrowed from,
Complete Plagiarism
AKA Intellectual Theft, Stealing
but not indicate that it’s a direct quote. In the second,
Commonness: 2.3/10
no attribution at all is provided, essentially claiming the
Most serious Author
words of someone else to be their own.
Complete Plagiarism is an extreme scenario when Me
a researcher takes a study, a manuscript or other work
from another researcher and simply resubmits it under
his/her own name.

Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape 10

Exploring the impact of research
misconduct in light of Kyoto
University’s PhD revocation
case
It’s a dreaded scenario for any institution, and on 25th May 2021, for the first time in its 124-
year history, Kyoto University took decisive action against research misconduct by revoking
the PhD of one of its students. It followed a tip off and subsequent investigation of their
2012 doctoral thesis, which was found to contain plagiarised material.

In a public statement released by Kyoto University, it confirmed 11 instances of dishonesty

in the published paper by PhD recipient Jin Jing, including a failure to cite sources in nine
instances, and the appropriation of others' ideas that met the criteria of plagiarism.

At the time the cheating was discovered, Jin Jing was working as a lecturer at The Shanghai
University of Electric Power’s College of Foreign Languages. Their decision to terminate Jing’s
employment as a result is a lesson to all that there is no room for complacency when it
comes to research integrity. Let’s take a look at the mechanisms of research misconduct with
a focus on plagiarism, and how the academic community can overcome it.

Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape 11

How prevalent is research
misconduct?
To grasp the magnitude of the problem, it’s helpful
to first define research misconduct. The World
Health Organisation defines research misconduct
as “intentional, knowing or reckless fraudulent
behaviour such as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism,
misrepresentation or other practices that deviate from
the principles of the Code of Conduct for Responsible
Research.”
Plagiarism is a particularly insidious form of research
misconduct — sprouting in a ‘copy and paste’ culture,
where misappropriating ideas is only a digital ‘click’
away. While publishers generally remain tight-lipped
about submission data, one leading journal reported
that they reject a sizeable 23% of submissions due to
identified plagiarism, so the problem is bigger than you
might think.
High-profile cases of research misconduct abound,
as evidenced by a 2017 case which saw a Tsinghua
University PhD student and his doctoral advisor
have their respective degree and job title revoked. At
least 11 published papers authored by the pair were
retracted from international academic journals for
various misconduct including self-plagiarism including
content duplication, image manipulation, data
fabrication. It suggests that the lack of early detection
only emboldens researchers to repeat worldwide? Problematically, the opportunity to publish
their misconduct.
Why do students (and
postgraduate students in
particular) plagiarise in research?
With such severe consequences attached to research
misconduct if caught, one might wonder what
drives students to risk submitting work that violates
research standards. Although accountability and
the penalty may remain the same, determining
students’ motivation and whether the misconduct
was intentional or negligent, is important in guiding
Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape
corrective measures by institutions while bolstering
their research culture.
Problematically, plagiarism in research is typically
perceived as an ‘undergraduate issue’, involving
students who haven’t yet mastered the techniques
of academic writing to present one’s own ideas in
conjunction with source material. That is, until a
postgraduate case of plagiarism emerges, confounding
the institution which laments how the student ‘should
have known better’. Of course, it’s not that simple.
Towards unpacking the motivations for research
misconduct. The Office of Research Integrity offers
5 key drivers for research misconduct.
1. Poor supervision
2. Inadequate training
3. Competitive pressures
4. Personal circumstances
5. Individual psychology
Individual pathology aside, the research environment
that students inhabit holds considerable sway. Most
institutions will be familiar with the term ‘publish
or perish’, which refers to the pressure to publish
research in order to advance one’s academic career.
Did you know that by 2030, the number of researchers
will expand from 20 million to an estimated 30 million
is not increasing as rapidly, with only 1.2 million more
articles estimated to be published in 2030 (5.2 million
total). In such an environment, it’s not altogether
surprising that researchers may start to test the
boundaries in the race to get published.
The true cost of research
misconduct
Research misconduct rocks the foundations of truth
and legitimacy that we hold dear in the academic
community, and indeed, society at large. Naturally,
the personal and professional costs of research
12
misconduct are significant, especially when you
consider the ecosystem that implicates the researcher,
their affiliated institution, and the publisher itself,
who must investigate the claim and retract the
offending content.
Broadly speaking, the consequences of research
misconduct can be categorised as follows:
• Individual costs — research candidates found
guilty of misconduct face the prospect of being
stripped of their title/status, expulsion from their
institution, not to mention a tarnished reputation
and damaged employment prospects.
• Capital costs — depending on the severity of the
misconduct, it may trigger litigation proceedings
which can incur significant financial cost for all
parties involved.
• Brand/reputation costs — A university affiliated
with the research candidate faces negative
publicity, a loss of credibility and questions of
negligence, and even a potential drop in student
enrollment rates.
• Human costs — in the case of falsification and
where the research is designed to inform provision
of public services such as medical care or civic
infrastructure, human welfare is also at stake.
(source: iThenticate)
The true cost of
research misconduct
Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape
Simply put, without comprehensive measures to detect
plagiarism and other forms of misconduct across
all levels of the sector, higher education institutions
expose themselves to risk.
How to deter research plagiarism
by building a culture of integrity
As we have witnessed in the case of Kyoto University,
research misconduct can slip through the cracks of
even the most prestigious institutions. How can we
successfully deter researchers from falling into this
trap?
Visibility of the issue and resulting discourse is key,
yet a recent study investigating whether the research
community and public at large are kept sufficiently
informed about misconduct that yields retractions,
found the level of media attention it receives is
inconsistent. Despite this, empowering researchers to
follow best practice needn’t be such a reactive affair.
Academic integrity guidelines and research policies
must remain the foundation of a healthy research
culture, but this idealism does not always reflect the
practical realities - both in perpetuating research
misconduct, and in identifying it. Pursuant to stopping
research plagiarism in its tracks, as opposed to
correcting it after the fact, universities and publishers
are increasingly adopting technological tools to enforce
greater accountability.
And tapping into the same tools publishers use is
highly beneficial for universities and researchers
looking for the best chance of getting their
manuscripts approved for publication. Furthermore,
if used throughout the research-writing process, such
tools go beyond detection or ‘policing’. They become a
formative measure - a legitimate ‘helping hand’ if you
will - for researchers to self-correct work and reduce
the temptation to deviate from research best practice.
13
What is the impact of self-
plagiarism for researchers?
When it comes to outright stealing someone else’s words with the intention of representing
them as your own, plagiarism is very well known. Too many of us are familiar with that
archetypal image of literally copying and pasting someone else’s words with the aim of
taking credit for something someone else has written. There have been movies made
about this. There have been scandals. And damaged reputations from which a comeback is
daunting.

And with that singular egregious image of one kind of academic misconduct in mind, it’s easy
to disregard self-plagiarism and citation errors as plagiarism, too. If you’re re-using your own
words, for instance--is it considered stealing? And why would citation errors matter if your
research is original?

If you’re a researcher with the goal of publishing and making an impact on the research
landscape, self-plagiarism and citation errors matter.

Let’s take a deeper look.

Self-plagiarism and its Researcher self-plagiarism presents in the

consequences
Self-plagiarism — or re-using your own words and
representing them as new — is a form of dishonesty,
following ways:
• Using previous research content (text recycling)
• Reusing research for multiple and similar

and yes, it is considered an act of plagiarism. submissions (redundant publication)

It’s easy to overlook self-plagiarism because when the • Partitioning one study into multiple publications

researcher is the author, they make the argument (“salami-slicing”)

that they can reuse the words that they themselves
created and thus, it is not theft. But self-plagiarism is
still a form of academic dishonesty. Furthermore, self-
plagiarism can infringe upon a publisher’s copyright.
Consider students, too — who may think that recycling
their own work isn’t plagiarism — when it very much
• Submitting work for publication with previously
published content without citation (augmented
publication)
• Copyright infringement
All are acts of academic misconduct and plagiarism,

is. They may reuse a paper for a prior class in another ones that can stain your reputation.

class for assessment. Or copy and paste sections from Self-plagiarism, according to a 2019 COPE study on
previously submitted work into a new assignment. publication ethics, is one of the biggest concerns of
When researchers copy their own work and represent publishers. Of 656 academic journal editors surveyed,
it as new work, it, too, is self-plagiarism. “Half of the respondents had encountered self-

Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape 14

plagiarism with 22% saying it arose frequently.” COPE
adds that self-plagiarism will, according to editors,
be one of the top publishing ethics issues in the
next five years: “The current output-driven academic
culture is expected to increase pressure to publish
and exacerbate issues such as self-plagiarism and
predatory publishing” (2019, p. 4).
Editorial concern regarding self-plagiarism is not
without merit. In their editorial on self-plagiarism for
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, Arumugan states
that “self-plagiarism is more common than thought, as
demonstrated by the results of recent studies” (2016,
p. 427).
Bretag and Carapiet investigated instances of
self-plagiarism in research and concluded, “This
exploratory investigation has found that self-plagiarism
is a common practice in academic research, with over
60% of authors in the sample having reused text from
a previous publication without appropriate citation”
(2007, p. 9).
Self-plagiarism can block your publication or subject
your publication to retraction — both of which
directly affect your reputation. Researchers with
retractions may have challenges with future research
as well as publication and see a decline of 10-20%
in citation rates (Mika, 2017). Furthermore, not only
is self-plagiarism an ethical issue but it may violate
copyright with another journal, which has its own legal
consequences.
In sum: self-plagiarism is on the radar of editors at
journals everywhere. So researchers must stay vigilant
about ensuring that their articles are original. Even
if it’s your own work, you cannot reuse it if you are
representing it as original work.
How can a researcher avoid self-plagiarism? Ensure
every part of your paper is original. And if you are
creating new ideas based on your prior research, make
sure to correctly cite your previous work.
This, of course, brings us to a related topic: the matter
of citation errors.
Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape
Citation errors and
consequences thereof
Citation errors are also an ethics challenge that editors
encounter with frequency. While citation errors can be
a result of forgetfulness, it’s important to ensure that
all outside research is attributed and cited, correctly.
According to the previously referenced 2019 COPE
study on publication ethics, “58% of the surveyed
editors encountered issues with detecting plagiarism
and poor attribution standards” (p. 4). Additionally,
editors think that attribution issues are expected to
increase in the next five years (p. 4).
Researchers have much to lose when it comes to
faltering in academic integrity, even with something as
seemingly innocuous as citation errors.
A history of citation errors can keep a researcher
from being published. Onwuegbuzie, Freis, and Slate
“reported a statistically significant and practically
significant (i.e., moderate) relationship between the
number of citation errors and the decision made by
the coeditors of the journals, with authors who made
more than three citation errors being approximately
four times more likely (odds ratio = 4.01; 95%
confidence interval = 1.22, 13.17) to have their
manuscripts rejected than were authors who made
three or less [sic] citation errors” (2010, p. iii).
On the flip side, Onwuegbuzie, Freis, et al. found
“manuscripts that were accepted contained statistically
significantly and practically significantly fewer citation
errors than did manuscripts that were not accepted”
(2010, p. xv).
All of these missteps can haunt a researcher’s work
and publication record. All of these missteps, too, stain
a publication’s reputation. And in the pursuit of making
a profound change in research — these are the last
things researchers and publications need.
While publishing has many success factors, one thing
that won’t ever change is the bedrock of academic
integrity underscoring reputation. The stakes of
academic reputation are high, rightfully so, as it’s a
hard-earned achievement. Let’s help preserve it by
upholding academic integrity.
15
Why fake journals exist: How to
avoid them and uphold research
integrity
Why do fake journals exist?
The landscape of research has become more and more
competitive over the years. According to UNESCO’s
research, the number of scientific articles in the Web of
Science grew by 23% between 2008 and 2014 while the
7.8 million recorded scientific researchers in 2013 is
expected to increase significantly by 2030.
Despite the increase in research, prestigious publishing
opportunities remain static. To top it off, these
publishing opportunities have low acceptance rates in
the 10-15% range, making them particularly daunting
for emerging researchers. Yet in the face of this,
researchers have to publish in order to ensure career
progression and be viable for such opportunities like
tenure or future funding at research institutions.
Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape
As a result, academic publishing is high stakes.
Without the recognition of published work, academic
researchers are considered unproductive and suffer
consequences like decreased funding for future
projects. One pressure release valve for this scenario
has been the advent of open access journals, which
provides publishing platforms for researchers,
particularly those who are emerging or those who
want their research more accessible. Well-intentioned
open access journals that engage in best practices
have been a boon to the research community.
But the flipside is that the burgeoning field of open
access journals has given rise to fake journals, also
known as predatory, deceptive, fraudulent, clone, or
pseudo-journals (Beall, Nature 2012). These journals
are ones that do not engage in peer review and have
minimal or little copy edits. In other words, they exist
primarily to extract publication fees from authors.
16
What is the impact of fake journals
on research integrity?
It’s a sad fact that predatory journals have taken
advantage of the space created to provide more access
points for researchers.

So what do predatory journals look like? Characteristics of

predatory journals include:

• The absence of peer review or falsely claiming to

conduct peer review (Bohannon, Science, 2013);

• Lack of, or very minimal, editorial processes;

• Hiding information about article processing charges;

• Misrepresentation of its editorial board (Sorowski, et

al., Nature 2017).

The very characteristics of predatory journals have long

lasting impacts on research integrity. The consequences
of predatory journals are myriad and include the
following:

• Fake or absent peer review removes checkpoints for

research validity. Because published research acts as
evidence, articles that are published without control
undermine the integrity of research;

• Poor quality research findings can lead to unsafe

practices, particularly in medicine (Taylor, 2021);

• Since many databases do not index low-quality

journals, research published in a predatory journal
may not be seen and thus overlooked (Moher, et al.,
Nature 2017);

• Predatory journals may take money but not publish

the research article in question and thus “scam” the
researcher (Elmore, et al., 2020).

Safeguarding research integrity and standards

17
in a changing research landscape
Predatory journals are a shortcut solution that
undermine the integrity of research. In sum, research
states, “This rise of predatory journals threatens the
quality of scholarship. Without a credible editorial
board, flawed scientific papers become an increasing
problem. These practices also threaten to give the
open-access movement a bad name” (Sorowski, et al.,
Nature 2017).

Research has historically been collaborative–enacting

the ideals of multiple authors, institutional support,
and peer review to build a network of trust across
institutions. (Hanson, Integrity Matters Podcast,
2022). When predatory journals take advantage of
research competition and offer no external oversight
or peer review, such predatory journals can skew the
conversation with unverified information. As a result,
this threatens the integrity of research itself.

Safeguarding research integrity and standards

18
in a changing research landscape
How do you avoid predatory The above actions can help researchers avoid
predatory journals, and thus safeguard their work and
journals and uphold research
careers. Avoiding predatory journals, too, helps quash
integrity? their reach. When researchers avoid fake journals, they

Thus, avoiding predatory journals is critical to can:

upholding integrity within research. Screening journals

to ensure research is treated with the appropriate
respect and collaborative review contributes to long
lasting dialogue around research content. And fosters
• Ensure high calibre information out of their
institution;
• Uphold research framework integrity;

stable academic careers.

• Safeguard their institution’s reputation as a
How can researchers avoid predatory journals? research centre;

• Confirm the periodical’s stated Journal Impact • Build accurate research, since research builds on

Factor and research the reputation and longevity the shoulders of prior research.

of the journal by searching Journal Citation Reports • The publishing landscape of research will
(Gillis, 2017); continue to evolve as research itself expands.
The contributions of researchers are essential to
• Verify that the journal is indexed. Refer to indexes
bettering our world; to that end, it’s necessary
like PubMedCentral or Web of Science (Clark,
to be aware of fake journals and to take steps to
2015);
avoid them.
• Utilise checklists for submission, such as the one
offered by the Think. Check. Submit. Initiative;

• Consider reading articles in the journal before

submitting and note grammatical and spelling
errors in addition to whether or not the website
looks professional and put together;

• Advise trainees to avoid predatory journals and

reference work only from recognised journals
(Wallace, 2019);

• And while admittedly controversial, engaging the

“whisper network” of blacklists can help emerging
researchers pinpoint illegitimate publications
(Strinzel, et al., ASM, 2019).

Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape 19

Integrity Matters episodes
The Integrity Matters by Turnitin vidcast is a platform for knowledge sharing amongst the
education community. Watch some of the fascinating discussions we’ve hosted on the topic
of research, courtesy of our guests across industry and academia.

Research integrity, impact factors and

commercialisation of research

Dr Daniel Barr, Principal Research Integrity Advisor | RMIT University

Dr David Blades, Senior Coordinator,
Research Integrity and Governance | RMIT University

Towards better practices in research and

research integrity

Dr Matthew Salter, Founder & CEO | Akabana Consulting

Exploring the pandemic’s impact on research

integrity practices and commercialisation

Dr Esther Gan, Scientist | Nuevocor

The future of research. Exploring research integrity

and the commercialisation of research

Gretchen Hansen, Director of Product Marketing,

Classroom Assessment | Turnitin

Research integrity and the impact of cloned and

predatory journals on academic integrity

Dr Sumit Narula, Deputy Dean, Research (Publications & Citations) |

Amity University, Gwalior

Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape 20

Looking to uphold research
integrity in the research-writing
process?
iThenticate
iThenticate is the most trusted plagiarism checker by the
world’s top researchers, publishers, and scholars.

Learn more

“ In my experience across publishing, academia and industry, I believe plagiarism

detection and academic integrity tools such as iThenticate ought to be an integral
part of research management, and incorporated into institutions’ research integrity
training and culture. The technology helps researchers to determine originality, curate
information and improve written communication. Using tools such as iThenticate is a
positive step towards bolstering your credentials as a responsible researcher.”

Dr Matthew Salter,
CEO and Founder,
Akabana Consulting

Safeguarding research integrity and standards in a changing research landscape 21

www.turnitin.com

© 2022 Turnitin LLC. All rights reserved. TII_HED_SafeguardingResearchIntegrity_Ebook_APAC_UK_0322