This document discusses various ethical issues in scientific research, including intellectual honesty, research integrity, scientific misconduct such as falsification and plagiarism. It addresses principles like duty to society, informed consent, and protecting research participants. Forms of problematic publishing are defined, like duplicate/overlapping publications and "salami slicing" research. Selective reporting or misrepresenting data to bias results undermines reproducibility. Upholding integrity requires monitoring at the individual researcher, work group and institutional levels.
Ethical research and publication practices are essential for honest scholarly and scientific research. Most journals today are keenly aware of this: they publish policies on these issues and expect authors to “be aware of, and comply with, best practice in publication ethics”.This article discusses two widespread and related publishing practices that are considered unethical—duplicate publication and simultaneous submission. It draws on definitive international publication ethics guidelines.
Ethical research and publication practices are essential for honest scholarly and scientific research. Most journals today are keenly aware of this: they publish policies on these issues and expect authors to “be aware of, and comply with, best practice in publication ethics”.This article discusses two widespread and related publishing practices that are considered unethical—duplicate publication and simultaneous submission. It draws on definitive international publication ethics guidelines.
Redundant, Duplicate and Repetitive publications are the most important concerns in the scientific research/literature writing. The occurrence of redundancy affects the concepts of science/literature and carries with it sanctions of consequences. To define this issue is much challenging because of the many varieties in which one can slice, reformat, or reproduce material from an already published study. This issue also goes beyond the duplication of a single study because it might possible that the same or similar data can be published in the early, middle, and later stages of an on-going study. This may have a damaging impact on the scientific study/literature base. Similar to slicing a cake, there are so many ways of representing a study or a set of data/information. We can slice a cake into different shapes like squares, triangles, rounds, or layers. Which of these might be the best way to slice a cake? Unfortunately, this may be the wrong question. The point is that the cake that is being referred to, the data/ information set or the study/findings, should not be sliced at all. Instead, the study should be presented as a whole to the readership to ensure the integrity of science/technology because of the impact that may have on patients who will be affected by the information contained in the literature/findings. Redundant, duplicate, or repetitive publications occur when there is representation of two or more studies, data sets, or publications in either electronic or print media. The publications can overlap partially or completely, such that a similar portion, major component(s), or complete representation of a previously/simultaneous ly or future published study is duplicated.
SALAMI SLICING: The slicing of research publication that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers is known as salami publication or salami slicing. Unlike duplicate publication, which involves reporting the exact same data in two or more publications, salami slicing involves breaking up or segmenting a large study into two or more publications. These segments are called slices of a study. As a general rule, as long as the slices of a broken-up study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods, this is not acceptable in general practice. The same slice should never be published more than once at all. According to the United States Office of Research Integrity (USORI), salami slicing can result in a distortion of the literature/findings by leading unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each salami slice (journal article) is derived from a different subject sample/source. Somehow this practice not only skews the scientific database but it creates repetition to waste reader's time as well as the time of editors and peer reviewers, who must also handle each paper separately.
Impact Factor Journals as per JCR, SNIP, SJR, IPP, CiteScoreSaptarshi Ghosh
Journal-level metrics
Metrics have become a fact of life in many - if not all - fields of research and scholarship. In an age of information abundance (often termed ‘information overload’), having a shorthand for the signals for where in the ocean of published literature to focus our limited attention has become increasingly important.
Research metrics are sometimes controversial, especially when in popular usage they become proxies for multidimensional concepts such as research quality or impact. Each metric may offer a different emphasis based on its underlying data source, method of calculation, or context of use. For this reason, Elsevier promotes the responsible use of research metrics encapsulated in two “golden rules”. Those are: always use both qualitative and quantitative input for decisions (i.e. expert opinion alongside metrics), and always use more than one research metric as the quantitative input. This second rule acknowledges that performance cannot be expressed by any single metric, as well as the fact that all metrics have specific strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, using multiple complementary metrics can help to provide a more complete picture and reflect different aspects of research productivity and impact in the final assessment. ( Elsevier)
In academia, the pressure to publish is high and the competition intense. This can lead authors to follow unethical publication practices, such as salami slicing, duplicate publication, and simultaneous submission. This slide deck explains these malpractices and shares tips on how authors can avoid them.
Ethics is a system of moral principles and the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc. research is steady progress by which we have gained a better understanding, greater ability of prediction and ever-increasing control over the world.
Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity.pptxsheelu57
Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways including:
Ensuring support for chosen ideologies does not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided. practices.
For individuals, research integrity is an aspect of moral character and experience. It involves above all a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one's actions and to a range of practices that characterize responsible research conduct.
Redundant, Duplicate and Repetitive publications are the most important concerns in the scientific research/literature writing. The occurrence of redundancy affects the concepts of science/literature and carries with it sanctions of consequences. To define this issue is much challenging because of the many varieties in which one can slice, reformat, or reproduce material from an already published study. This issue also goes beyond the duplication of a single study because it might possible that the same or similar data can be published in the early, middle, and later stages of an on-going study. This may have a damaging impact on the scientific study/literature base. Similar to slicing a cake, there are so many ways of representing a study or a set of data/information. We can slice a cake into different shapes like squares, triangles, rounds, or layers. Which of these might be the best way to slice a cake? Unfortunately, this may be the wrong question. The point is that the cake that is being referred to, the data/ information set or the study/findings, should not be sliced at all. Instead, the study should be presented as a whole to the readership to ensure the integrity of science/technology because of the impact that may have on patients who will be affected by the information contained in the literature/findings. Redundant, duplicate, or repetitive publications occur when there is representation of two or more studies, data sets, or publications in either electronic or print media. The publications can overlap partially or completely, such that a similar portion, major component(s), or complete representation of a previously/simultaneous ly or future published study is duplicated.
SALAMI SLICING: The slicing of research publication that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers is known as salami publication or salami slicing. Unlike duplicate publication, which involves reporting the exact same data in two or more publications, salami slicing involves breaking up or segmenting a large study into two or more publications. These segments are called slices of a study. As a general rule, as long as the slices of a broken-up study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods, this is not acceptable in general practice. The same slice should never be published more than once at all. According to the United States Office of Research Integrity (USORI), salami slicing can result in a distortion of the literature/findings by leading unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each salami slice (journal article) is derived from a different subject sample/source. Somehow this practice not only skews the scientific database but it creates repetition to waste reader's time as well as the time of editors and peer reviewers, who must also handle each paper separately.
Impact Factor Journals as per JCR, SNIP, SJR, IPP, CiteScoreSaptarshi Ghosh
Journal-level metrics
Metrics have become a fact of life in many - if not all - fields of research and scholarship. In an age of information abundance (often termed ‘information overload’), having a shorthand for the signals for where in the ocean of published literature to focus our limited attention has become increasingly important.
Research metrics are sometimes controversial, especially when in popular usage they become proxies for multidimensional concepts such as research quality or impact. Each metric may offer a different emphasis based on its underlying data source, method of calculation, or context of use. For this reason, Elsevier promotes the responsible use of research metrics encapsulated in two “golden rules”. Those are: always use both qualitative and quantitative input for decisions (i.e. expert opinion alongside metrics), and always use more than one research metric as the quantitative input. This second rule acknowledges that performance cannot be expressed by any single metric, as well as the fact that all metrics have specific strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, using multiple complementary metrics can help to provide a more complete picture and reflect different aspects of research productivity and impact in the final assessment. ( Elsevier)
In academia, the pressure to publish is high and the competition intense. This can lead authors to follow unethical publication practices, such as salami slicing, duplicate publication, and simultaneous submission. This slide deck explains these malpractices and shares tips on how authors can avoid them.
Ethics is a system of moral principles and the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc. research is steady progress by which we have gained a better understanding, greater ability of prediction and ever-increasing control over the world.
Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity.pptxsheelu57
Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways including:
Ensuring support for chosen ideologies does not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided. practices.
For individuals, research integrity is an aspect of moral character and experience. It involves above all a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one's actions and to a range of practices that characterize responsible research conduct.
How do you define research ethics? Discuss Ethics and the Research Process. ...Md. Sajjat Hossain
How do you define research ethics? Discuss Ethics and the Research Process. Why researcher should be ethical. Discuss General Ethical Theories and Ethical Principles. What are the Specific Ethical Problems? Describe Ethics and Online Research.
Ethics are the moral principles that a person must follow, irrespective of the place or time. Behaving ethically involves doing the right thing at the right time. Research ethics focus on the moral principles that researchers must follow in their respective fields of research.
Professional ethics and scientific research: conceptions of researchers who a...Martín López Calva
Forum Viena
Juan Martín López-Calva.
juanmartin.lopez@upaep.mx
María del Carmen de la Luz Lanzagorta. marucha_delaluz@yahoo.com.mx
UPAEP Puebla, México
The level of trust that has characterized science and its relationship with society has contributed to a period of unparalleled scientific productivity. But this trust will endure only if the scientific community devotes itself to exemplifying and transmitting the values associated with ethical scientific conduct. Government oversight of scientific research is important, but such oversight, in the form of administrative rules, typically stipulates what cannot be done.
Research ethics and problems encountred by reseachers ErTARUNKASHNI
Definition of research ethics
Objective of research ethics
Importance of research ethics
Principles of research ethics
Do’s and don'ts of research ethics
Problems encountered by researchers
Honest Reviews of Tim Han LMA Course Program.pptxtimhan337
Personal development courses are widely available today, with each one promising life-changing outcomes. Tim Han’s Life Mastery Achievers (LMA) Course has drawn a lot of interest. In addition to offering my frank assessment of Success Insider’s LMA Course, this piece examines the course’s effects via a variety of Tim Han LMA course reviews and Success Insider comments.
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptxEduSkills OECD
Francesca Gottschalk from the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation presents at the Ask an Expert Webinar: How can education support child empowerment?
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptxJheel Barad
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
Adversarial Attention Modeling for Multi-dimensional Emotion Regression.pdf
Unit 2
1. Unit II: SCIENTIFIC CONDUCT (5 Hrs.)
Ethics with respect to science and research - Intellectual honesty and research integrity -
Scientific misconducts: Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism (FFP) - Redundant
Publications: duplicate and overlapping publications, salami slicing - Selective reporting and
misrepresentation of data.
Ethics with respect to science and research
This research found ten ethical principles common across scientific disciplines. They are duty
to society; beneficence; conflict of interest; informed consent; integrity; nondiscrimination;
non exploitation; privacy and confidentiality; professional competence; and professional
discipline.
This research found ten ethical principles common across scientific disciplines
They are duty to society; beneficence; conflict of interest; informed consent; integrity;
nondiscrimination; non exploitation; privacy and confidentiality; professional competence; and
professional discipline.
Each ethical principle applies to the scientific inquiry, the conduct and behaviors of researchers,
or the ethical treatment of research participants.
Only one ethical principle — duty to society — applies to the scientific inquiry by asking
whether the research benefits society.
Variations in ethical principles across disciplines are usually due to whether the discipline
includes human or animal subjects.
Variations in ethical principles across countries are usually due to local laws, oversight, and
enforcement; cultural norms; and whether research is conducted in the researchers' host country
or a foreign country.
Ethics are created, change, and evolve due to the following factors:
significant historic events that create a reckoning
ethical lapses that lead researchers to create new safeguards
scientific advancements that lead to new fields of research
changes in cultural values and behavioral norms that evolve over time.
Mechanisms to monitor and enforce research vary in effectiveness and by
country
Professional societies and peer-reviewed journals offer consistent ethical standards across
national borders, though they lack the enforcement strength of nation-states.
2. Emerging trends — including big data, open science, and citizen science — provide research
opportunities while introducing new ethical risks.
Professional societies respond to emerging changes with updates to codes of conduct, education
and training for researchers, and governance structures for researchers, sponsors, and research
subjects.
Intellectual honesty and research integrity
Intellectual honesty in proposing, performing, and reporting research refers to honesty with respect
to the meaning of one's research. It is expected that researchers present proposals and data honestly
and communicate their best understanding of the work in writing and verbally. The descriptions of an
individual's work found in such communications frequently present selected data from the work
organized into frameworks that emphasize conceptual understanding rather than the chronology
of the discovery process. Clear and accurate research records must underlie these descriptions,
however. Researchers must be advocates for their research conclusions in the face of collegial
skepticism and must acknowledge errors.
Intellectual property provisions and secrecy allow for patents and licensure and encourage
private investment in research. Furthermore, even for publicly funded research, a degree of
discretion may permit a research group to move ahead more efficiently. Conversely, an
investigator who delays reporting important new findings risks having others publish similar
results first and receiving little recognition for the discovery. Knowing when and how much to
tell will always remain a challenge in scientific communication.
Integrity in Research
The pursuit and dissemination of knowledge enjoy a place of distinction in American culture,
and the public expects to reap considerable benefit from the creative and innovative
contributions of scientists. As science becomes increasingly intertwined with major social,
philosophical, economic, and political issues, scientists become more accountable to the larger
society of which they are a part. As a consequence, it is more important than ever that individual
scientists and their institutions periodically reassess the values and professional practices that
guide their research as well as their efforts to perform their work with integrity.
Integrity characterizes both individual researchers and the institutions in which they work. For
individuals, it is an aspect of moral character and experience.1 For institutions, it is a matter of
creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct by embracing standards of
excellence, trustworthiness, and lawfulness that inform institutional practices.
For the individual scientist, integrity embodies above all a commitment to intellectual honesty
and personal responsibility for one's actions and to a range of practices that characterize
responsible research conduct. These practices include:
intellectual honesty in proposing, performing, and reporting research;
3. accuracy in representing contributions to research proposals and reports;
fairness in peer review;
collegiality in scientific interactions, including communications and sharing of resources;
transparency in conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest;
protection of human subjects in the conduct of research;
humane care of animals in the conduct of research; and
adherence to the mutual responsibilities between investigators and their research teams.
Individual scientists work within complex organizational structures. (These structures and their
interactions are described in detail in Chapter 3.) Factors that promote responsible conduct can
exert their influences at the level of the individual; at the level of the work group (e.g., the
research group); and at the level of the research institution itself. These different organizational
levels are interdependent in the conduct of research. Institutions seeking to create an
environment that promotes responsible conduct by individual scientists and that fosters integrity
must establish and continuously monitor structures, processes, policies, and procedures that:
provide leadership in support of responsible conduct of research;
encourage respect for everyone involved in the research enterprise;
promote productive interactions between trainees and mentors;
advocate adherence to the rules regarding all aspects of the conduct of research,
especially research involving human subjects and animals;
anticipate, reveal, and manage individual and institutional conflicts of interest;
arrange timely and thorough inquiries and investigations of allegations of scientific
misconduct and apply appropriate administrative sanctions;
offer educational opportunities pertaining to integrity in the conduct of research; and
monitor and evaluate the institutional environment supporting integrity in the conduct of
research and use this knowledge for continuous quality improvement.
Scientific misconducts: Falsification, Fabrication and Plagiarism (FFP)
Publication Misconduct
To respect the intellectual property rights of others and uphold the standards for academic
publishing, publishers of book or journal is adopting a zero tolerance policy towards papers
associated with publication misconduct. Publication misconduct includes plagiarism, fabrication,
falsification, inappropriate authorship, duplicate submission/multiple submissions, overlapping
publication, and salami publication.
4. 1.Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's thoughts, ideas, data,
figures,
research methods, or words without giving appropriate credit, or the over-citation of another
person's published work.
2. Fabrication: Fabrication is the practice of making up data or results without having
performed
relevant research.
3. Falsification: Falsification is the practice of changing data or results intentionally such that
misleading conclusion is drawn.
REDUNDANT PUBLICATIONS
Duplicate Publication:
When you publish a new paper similar to published paper by another author or your own
paper without acknowledging the source and without getting permission from the original
author is called duplicate publication.
Even if you change the title or abstract data and results remain same.
It violates the copyright of paper.
Researchers who study the paper get the results count as twice.
Wastage of editorial views/reviews.
Republication of same work unjustly for limited space and denies the others author right
to publish a paper.
Do’s and Don’s of Duplicate Publication
Do not replicate the contents from any other your published paper.
Do not offer other preliminary reports about the published papers to any other
company without the permission of the journal.
When submitting your paper in any journal or any other editors provide copies of
your published papers and related papers for complete transparency.
When quoting data from your published paper, Include few sentences , place the
text in quotations and marks then with cites and source.
Redundant Publications
Salami Slicing
Salami Slicing is the practice of fragmenting the single coherent bodies into as many as
smaller publications as possible.
5. An author breaks up the study into two or many slices of their work.
A single research is divided into slices called as publication unit.
Authors do it “to increase their publication count, to achieve career progression, to gain
recognition, to get more funding, to achieve self-satisfaction.
Selective reporting and misrepresentation of data.
Selective reporting bias is when results from scientific research are deliberately not fully or
accurately reported, in order to suppress negative or undesirable findings. The end result is that
the findings are not reproducible, because they have been skewed by bias during the analysis
or writing stages.
Selective reporting is one type of bias which undermines the integrity of academic research. It is
a large contributor to the current ‘reproducibility crisis’ facing scientific publishing
Selective reporting is important, and many people still ignore the issue. And it's one of the root
causes of the current replicability crisis we are facing not only in biomedical sciences, in the
social sciences, but it's clear that it's also happening in other types of sciences.
As Professor Bouter explains, selective reporting bias can incorporate a number of other types of
bias, such as :
Publication bias – where the results of negative clinical trials are not published or under-
published
Outcome reporting bias – where the results of negative clinical trials are cherry-picked
or distorted to improve the overall findings
Spin – communicating results in a way which amplifies positive findings or tones down
negative findings
Citation bias – positive studies are more likely to be cited than negative studies
Selective reporting bias, FFP, and other examples of research misconduct, all contribute to a
culture of mistrust in science and academia. However, journal editors can play a role in helping
change this perception, by upholding a culture of research integrity on their journals.