Academic Ethics

We describe the educational character and leadership development processes used by the United States Air Force Academy that other educational institutions may find useful. Our processes include an integrated educational curriculum designed to complement and integrate the experiential learning that results in achieving specific organizational outcomes, co-curricular activities in cadet living, and a specific focus on the ethical development of leaders’ respect for human dignity and cultural competency as well as the mechanisms to assess and refine our processes.

Most scientific domains have guidelines concerning ethics in research. These guidelines are designed to enable researchers to conduct good research while avoiding potential harm to research participants. This paper examines the bases for ethical codes in research and discusses how these codes are operationalized in research conducted in the field of mathematics education.

This paper focuses on some of the ethical issues which may arise when conducting research in the context of homelessness. These issues are considered from the viewpoints of researchers, research coordinators and interviewers, drawing from their extensive real world experience. In addition to negotiating the complex context of homelessness, community-based homelessness researchers need to address a number of ethical issues in research conception, design, implementation and dissemination. Although these issues are commonly considered in community-engaged research, research with people who are homeless may raise exceptional challenges. Such challenges include determining the nature of informed consent; protecting research participants and researchers, and determining appropriate compensation for participation. Understanding the context of homelessness to conduct ethical research will require sharing information and joint decision-making, processes that must include members of communities within which the research participants live. Furthermore, researchers should be sensitive to the changing context of homelessness, and vigilant for new ethical challenges.

Trade-Van Director Chien-Lung Hsu was dismissed from his position of associate professor at Takming University of Science and Technology following revelations about plagiarism and fabrication in his published academic papers. As a result of Jen-Chang Liu's impeachment on 24 May 2017, Hsu mistakenly believed he could reverse the upcoming decision to retract his paper and, through Wan-Jun Lai, invited Jen-Chang Liu to endorse his academic integrity in a statement on 6 June 2017. Out of sympathy for Hsu's embarrassment resulting from the disclosure of his misconduct, Liu was willing to endorse his practical capability but not his academic integrity. However, Hsu falsified the statement and cheated to the editor by claiming that Liu had admitted that Liu's accusation had been misconducted. Hsu's fraudulence was recognized by the editor and his paper was retracted sooner than expectated. After experiencing Hsu's serial dishonesty, Liu began to rebut a number of false statements Hsu released to the public. Consequently, Hsu and Lai went to the Investigation Bureau on 6 December 2017, claiming that Liu was "an academic cockroach making profit from disclosing the defect in scholars' papers" and had extorted Hsu for money. Both Wan-Jun Lai and Shin-Yun Wang claimed to be witnesses to the alleged extortion. This article presents solid evidence proving that both Hsu and Lai committed perjury. The only way to stem the deteriorating state of academic practices is through public disclosure is by calling out academic misconduct.

Throughout the duration of this psychology capstone project (PSYC4900), learners were required to write 5 self-determined short essays on various psychological topics. This paper is a compilation of topics on postpartum depression; prejudice and minorities; the banning of hijabs in French schools; academic dishonesty; and professional goals, choices, values, and life experiences. Essays include such activities as analyzing research data, thinking critically, viewing cultural competency, evaluating ethics, and organizing a career portfolio. It should be noted that because of the absence of citations, the capstone project’s journaling activities have been generally omitted for the sake of promoting scholasticism. In addition, this manuscript is not a thesis and is not presented in its original form; rather, it has been edited significantly since its submission for grammar and formatting.

The article analyses the history of Humboldt's university model and its relevance and effectiveness nowadays. Humboldt's university model has been developed in the beginning of the 19 th century by W. von Humboldt and widespread worldwide. Universities which were organized according to the model depended on a national state and interacted with it, benefiting the state's culture and educational level of the population, developing scientific research. The model was criticizing during the 20 th century, but many famous universities shared its values. B. Readings in his " University in Ruins " shows that Humboldt's university model does not work anymore because of the decreasing influence of national states, growing significance of the global market and disappearing of national culture as phenomenon. The author argues that Humboldt's university model has been restricted since Humboldt's times but it is still the basic model of contemporary universities worldwide.

Sosa's "virtue epistemology," Haack notes, is a form of reliabilism. Zagzebski's is more focused on epistemic virtues, though misguided in hoping to explain epistemic justification in terms of the exercise of such virtues. But epistemic virtues are a fascinating topic, as Haack shows in this wide-ranging look at the ideal of intellectual integrity.

學術著作必須公開流通、討論、批判與利用，提供接續之研究者站在巨人肩膀，得以看得更寬、更遠。學術活動不僅直接關係國家之競爭力，更關係著不同國家、族群或世代之間的交流；當交流與澄清形成的共識範圍愈多，人與人之間的爭議或衝突範圍即縮減。因此，現代化國家都將學術活動形成國家制度，涉及教育學位授予、教師與研究員資格取得之學術著作，必須公開陳列與流通。相反的，蔡英文的升等教授文件被核定保密30年，而升等副教授的博士論文直到2019年9月才公開。本研究旨在註解蔡英文1983年取得自倫敦政經學院的博士論文，協助華文讀者解讀蔡英文1983博士論文的實質內容。 Academic works should be publicly circulated, discussed, criticized, and digested by others, who stand on the shoulders of giants to see further and wider. Academic activities not only directly affect a country's competition, but also contribute to the interactions among different countries, groups, and generations. When the range of intellectual consensus expands through academic communication and clarification, the range of misunderstanding and conflicts diminish. Therefore, Academia is a national institution and directs policy in modern world, Furthermore, academic works must be publicized and circulated, especially those relating to the qualifications of teachers and researchers. Ironically, Ing-Wen Tsai's document regarding her professor-position was classified as top secret for 30 years, and her LSE Ph.D. thesis granting her a vice professor position was not released until September 2019. This article discusses her Ph.D. thesis to help Chinese readers to digest Ing-Wen Tsai's (1983) credentials.

I hereby release my Unicode transcription of Thomas into the public domain.
With the papyrus of the Nag Hammadi Library publicly accessible, so must the transcriptions be, in order that translations can be verified - and 'silent emendations' such as translating Chrestian with Christian on every single one of its 5 occurrences (without a single note or indication) in the Gospel of Philip rendered obsolete: 5 times it says Chrestian there, 2 times it says Christian - yet no translation contains the word Chrestian.
How can that be, isn't there a single Coptic translator who thinks that Chrestian should say Chrestian?
Needless to say, this doesn't happen the other way around, with "translators" translating Christian with Chrestian

Biblical academic must change, and the falsification must stop - and measures must be taken to prevent future repetition. This paper contains a proposal for the future, as well as an example of the 'silent emendation' of Chrestian into Christian by the four first and foremost translations: Schenke, Till, Wilson, and Layton

________________________________________________________________________________
+++Version Management+++
Includes Discussion content (30 pages) - see https://www.academia.edu/57161277/Publication_List_and_Discussion_Content_access

Одной из актуальных задач истории науки является изучение этических вопросов исследовательской деятельности, которые включают в себя не только ценностные ориентации и добродетели ученых, но также отклонения от норм, конфликты, «академические грехи». На основе делопроизводственных источников из Архива РАН в статье проанализирована проблема плагиата в советской исторической науке в послевоенное время. Рассмотрены конфликты из-за плагиата советских ученых: Н. М. Дружинина, Т. Д. Шоинбаева, Л. В. Черепнина, А. М. Карасика, А. Л. Сидорова, А. И. Гуковского, Л. И. Зубока, И. С. Звавича, П. Я. Букшпана и И. А. Федосова. Исследованы вопросы о работе специальных комиссий, которые рассматривали дела о подозрении в плагиате. Один из ключевых вопросов, поднятых в статье: что понималось под феноменом «плагиат» в исследовательской среде того времени? Показана зависимость решения комиссии о плагиате от особенностей академического жанра/вида историографического источника, который подвергался экспертизе. Выделены две разновидности осознанного недобросовестного заимствования: текстуальный плагиат и плагиат идей. Отдельное внимание уделено проблеме наказаний за интеллектуальную кражу – главным образом рассмотрены требования обвинителей, а также меры, которые предпринимались, если был доказан факт несамостоятельной и недобросовестной работы. В итоге создание комиссий рассматривается как реакция научного сообщества на этические конфликты, попытка урегулировать вопросы, связанные с подозрением в одном из главных нарушений в исследовательской сфере. В заключительной части статьи также выделена дальнейшей перспектива темы через изучение мотивации ученых, занимавшихся плагиатом.

In science history one of the actual problems is the study of ethical issues of research activity. These issues include not only value orientations and virtues of academics, but also deviations from norms, conflicts, aca-demic violations. This paperis devoted to the problem of plagiarism in Soviet historical science after 1945on the basis ofdocumentation materials from the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS).The article ex-amines the conflicts of Soviet researches: N.M. Druzhinin, T.D. Shoinbaev, L.V. Cherepnin, A.M. Karasik, A.L. Sidorov, A.I. Gukovskiy, L.I. Zubok, I.S. Zvavich, P.Ya. Bukshpan and I.A. Fedosov.Therearestudiedthe issues ofspecial commissions that considered cases of plagiarism. In the article one of the keypoints is related to concept meaning of plagiarism in the scientific field. One of the main circumstances in commission'sexpertiseis related tofeatures of the academic genre/type of historiographical source, so the research is analyzed this prob-lem too. There are defined two types of conscious unfair borrowing: textual plagiarism and plagiarism of ideas. Special attention is paid to the theme of punishment for intellectual theft. There are considered the requirements of the accusers, punishmentmeasures.Tosumitup, the forming of commissions is regarded as thereaction of re-search community to ethical conflicts, the attempt to resolve issues related to suspicion of plagiarism in aca-demia. There is also noted the further perspective of this topic through the study of the motivation of scholars-plagiarists.

Drawing on ego-documents and scholarly works of the outstanding historian Stepan Borisovich Veselovskiy, this article analyzes the ethical principles he adhered to between the 1920s and 1950s, when he, though staying in the USSR, lived in inner emigration. Particular attention is paid to the concepts of "academic ethics" and "professional ethics". The author studies both universal and specific value orientations of scholars within the framework of professional ethics. As applied to Veselovskiy's scholarly work while in inner emigration, the relationship between professional ethics and the scholar's epistemology is traced. Academic ethics is analyzed using Robert K. Merton's theory of the ethos of science, which makes it possible to single out such imperatives as communism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism in Veselovskiy's scholarly work. In addition, the author considers the correlation between Veselovskiy's ethical views as a person and as a scholar. The article concludes that it was the ethical principles Veselovskiy developed before the 1917 revolution that conditioned his choice of methods to study the past and his ways of constructing a scholarly text, and allowed him to become an inner emigrant in the face of rejection.

In the past two decades, individual explanations of scientific misconduct ('bad apples') have increasingly given way to systemic explanations ('bad systems'). Where did this interest in systemic factors (publication pressure, competition for research funding) come from? Given that research ethicists often present their interventions as responses to scientific misconduct, this article tests the hypothesis that these systemic explanations were triggered by high-visibility cases of scientific norm violation. It does so by examining why Dutch scientists in 2011 explained Diederik Stapel's grand-scale data fabrication largely in systemic terms, whereas only fifteen years earlier, in the René Diekstra affair (1996), such explanations had been close to absent. Drawing on a wealth of historical sources, the article suggests that cases like Stapel's as such do not explain why early 21st-century commentators exchanged individual explanations for systemic ones. Only against the background of an existing discourse of criticism of the science system, developed in the 1990s and 2000s in response to rapidly increasing competition for research funding, could the Stapel affair achieve notoriety as an example of how systemic factors provoke bad conduct.

Straight answers to questions definitive of the academic life: What is a university? What is a professor? Who are the colleagues of a person in higher education? What should be learned in graduate school regardless of the field of specialization? To what extent can a human being live by academic standards and ethics? See the link at the bottom of the article for the rest of the series: 2. "The Idea of the University" and 3. "Upholding Professional Standards and Ethics."

Self-plagiarism requires clear definition within an environment that places integrity at the heart of the research enterprise. This paper explores the whole notion of self-plagiarism by academics and distinguishes between appropriate and inappropriate textual re-use in academic publications, while considering research on other forms of plagiarism such as student plagiarism. Based on the practical experience of the authors in identifying academics’ self-plagiarism using both electronic detection and manual analysis, a simple model is proposed for identifying self-plagiarism by academics.

When a researcher creates a paper based on previous works, but conceals the "cited literature" without explicitly publishing the fact of the citation, it will interrupt the transmission of information and even hinder the spread and development of knowledge. If academic workers do not cite or explicitly express the implicated previous works, this is depriving readers of their information rights. This kind of misconduct is motivated to avoid allegations of academic fraud controversy. This article discloses the controversial works jointly published by National Taiwan University, Tsinghua University and Taipei University. The three works make use of the same sample for studying different issues, consequently they are suspected of serious academic misconduct. The involved author has two international papers be retracted due to academic misconduct, both with an SSCI impact coefficient greater than 2. Academic misconduct tends to be a habit and culture. The newly exposed cases in this article can test the academic integrity of domestic management academic journals.

Like predatory journals, predatory conferences are a growing part of the academic landscape, but unlike their journal counterparts, to date predatory conferences have not been extensively investigated, and many unanswered questions about their workings exist. From a positive ethics perspective, a more complete understanding of predatory conferences is desirable, as it can support researchers in making ethically appropriate choices about conference attendance. Ten predatory conference organisations were the focus of this study. The investigation first set out to identify and document the attributes of such conferences. They were then analysed to understand which attributes can most easily and reliably be used to distinguish them from legitimate conferences. A tool to assist prospective participants is introduced. The implications for positive ethics, in terms of making decisions about conference attendance, are discussed.

This article applies principles from the first two articles in the series to further clarify the nature of education and the exemplary life of the educator. Ethics will be distinguished from values and morals, with professional ethics added to academic ethics. The role of educators in society is suggested, with examples given of how professional ethics are upheld or violated. In order to clarify standards and to uphold ethics in the real world of experience, it is necessary to challenge unethical practices, because there is quite a difference in outcomes in each individual and society depending on whether educators live the academic life or not.

В статье рассматриваются достижения, тенденции и проблемы в развитии общественных наук, прежде всего гуманитарных – истории, филологии и др. после 1991 г. Автор определяет особенности этой сферы фундаментальной науки и тенденцию роста приоритета отечественной тематики при сохранении установки на изучение глобальной тематики и старой структуры научных учреждений. Предлагается список инновационных тем для будущих планов и проектов. Особое внимание обращено на грантовую политику РГНФ–РФФИ, которая позволила преодолеть кризисные явления, возникшие после 1991 г., скорректировать научную повестку в пользу междисциплинарных, практически ориентированных исследований, а в институциональном плане – в пользу вузовской науки. Автором фиксируются кризисные и негативные явления в современной социогуманитарной науке, особенно связанные с её институциональным обеспечением, нормами научной этики и ответственности. Предлагаются меры по улучшению ситуации, в том числе касающиеся неоправданного сокращения доли грантовой поддержки учёных в системе Российской академии наук – средоточии гуманитарной фундаментальной науки в России

On 13 December 2013, Jen-Chang Liu reviewed Shin-Yun Wang’s (2014) newly published textbook and found enormous questionable issues, in particular the textbook transmitted erroneous information from other testbooks. On 7 January 2014, Liu notified the authors and publisher whose copyright were infringed by Wang. Layer Yang, representing the publisher, sent Wang a statement highlighting Wang’s infringements in March 2014, which was rebutted by Wang in an arrogant tone. Consequently, Liu provided Yang a manuscript analyzing Wang’s work and some comments, which in turn rendered Wang to concede and pay compensation to the authors. In an attempt to revenge Liu, Wang collaborated with Chien-Lung Hsu to accuse Liu of extortion, and successfully rendered Liu a sentence of six months. Outraged by the ridiculous verdict, Liu examined the document submitted by the Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau and found a lot of perjury by Investigators Yi-Da Li and Jia-Fo Wang. The Investigators falsified that Wang (2014) was accused by the infringed authors and forced to suspend her textbook in 2013, that Liu threatened Wang by sending her e-mails in 2014 after knowing Wang’s misconduct, and that Liu published his article disclosing Wang transmitted erroneous knowledge in 2015, after failing to get benefits from Wang. This paper reveals and condemns the criminal acts by the Investigators.
劉任昌在2013年12月13日閱讀新發行的王詩韻（2014）教科書，發現眾多錯誤，尤其是傳遞其他教科書的錯誤觀念，因此在2014年1月7日通知遭侵權作者與出版商。受委任的楊律師在2014年3月向王詩韻提出主張權利的聲明，卻被王詩韻以高傲態度駁斥。劉任昌向楊律師提供批判手稿，也提供促成王詩韻低頭、賠償的觀點。為圖報復劉任昌，王詩韻和許建隆聯手，向調查局指控劉任昌恐嚇取財，導致劉任昌遭判刑六個月。經過檢視司法卷證，發現法務部調查局嚴重偽造文書，臺北市調處處長萬家佛與調查員李宜達違背筆錄證據，聲稱王詩韻（2014）著作在2013年被廖四郎主張侵權而下架，捏造劉任昌據此在2014年向王詩韻恐嚇，以及捏造劉任昌（2014）批判王詩韻傳遞錯誤觀念的著作發表於2015年。本文揭露、痛批法務部調查局的不倫行徑。

Skills in writing papers for scientific journals have become crucial across academia, and universities everywhere are arranging writing courses in their ph. d programs. During two decades of teaching such courses I have witnessed how research integrity has emerged from a non-issue to an increasingly important topic. This contribution to a symposium on research integrity at The Royal Society of Arts and Sciences in Gothenburg in 2017 analyzes these content changes. The first section deals with the practice-oriented issues at the center during the first years: how to write and to manage the review process. The next section presents the historical development of scientific communication, why publishing in peer-reviewed journals now occupies such a central place, and the functions fulfilled by this form of publishing. Section three focuses on ethics and integrity, and presents recent research on retractions and editorial experiences in the fields of management, organization and economics. The final section discusses the problems of fragmented control in modern academia and the asymmetry between rapid entry and exceedingly slow exits in leading journals. The paper concludes with suggesting that academia needs to study the drug-fighting institutions in international sports to improve its capacity to expose and sanction unethical behavior.

The concept of distributed moral responsibility (DMR) has a long history. When it is understood as being entirely reducible to the sum of (some) human, individual, and already morally loaded actions, then the allocation of DMR, and hence of praise and reward or blame and punishment, may be pragmatically difficult, but not conceptually problematic. However, in distributed environments it is increasingly possible that a network of agents, some human, some artificial (e.g. a program) and some hybrid (e.g. a group of people working as a team thanks to a software platform) may cause distributed moral actions (DMAs). These are morally good or evil (i.e., morally loaded) actions caused by local interactions that are in themselves neither good nor evil (morally neutral). In this article, I analyse DMRs that are due to DMAs and argue in favour of the allocation, by default and overridably, of full moral responsibility (faultless responsibility) to all the nodes/agents in the network causally relevant for bringing about the DMA in question, independently of intentionality. The mechanism proposed is inspired by, and adapts, three concepts: back propagation from network theory, strict liability from jurisprudence, and common knowledge from epistemic logic.

Described by one reader as "delightfully direct," this memoir is illuminating both about Haack's career, and her philosophical development.
This reprint is remarkable both for having appeared only three weeks after the original, but also for the introduction by Robert Hanna (whom Haack has never met). "Susan Haack is not only a real philosopher-by which I mean an authentic, serious philosopher-she is also an all-around brilliant real philosopher, and a truly independent thinker. Indeed, she is arguably the greatest living philosopher, whether inside or outside the professional academy. And among other truly independent thinkers alive today, only Noam Chomsky seems to me comparable to her.

This study responds to Bay and Greenberg's (Bay, D.D. and Greenberg, R.R. (2001). The relationship of the DIT and behavior: A replication. Issues in Accounting Education 10(3): 367–380) call to investigate alternative psychometric instruments to measure ethical behavior other than the heavily relied upon Defining Issues Test. The Mach IV scale (Christie, 1970) has been cited in more than 500 published psychological studies; however, it has not been used extensively in the accounting ethics research. This study provides some preliminary evidence on the use of the Mach IV scale in an accounting ethics context. Similar to ethics studies in other academic disciplines, results across two dependent measures indicate accounting students high in Machiavellianism are more likely to view questionable ethical behavior as acceptable. The research findings also indicate that the Machiavellian construct appears to be a better predictor of ethical propensities in comparison to the commonly used Defining Issues Test. The paper concludes with a discussion on how these reported research findings impact the accounting profession and accounting education.

CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS to a special issue of the Journal of Academic Ethics on the theme Positive Integrity

Guest Editors
Diane Pecorari, City University of Hong Kong
Wendy Sutherland-Smith, Deakin University


Much research within academic ethics tends to focus on the transgressive, that is, on violations of ethical principles, such as plagiarism or falsification of data, and how to prevent them. The other side of the equation deserves consideration as well: what are the attainments in academic ethics that we should aspire to, and how can they be promoted? This special issue of the Journal of Academic Ethics will focus on such questions of "positive integrity."

Article contributions are sought on topics such as the following:
• principles driving high ethical standards in research and publication
• factors associated with principled academic behaviour
• a "core curriculum" of skills and understandings that needed by novice members of the academic community
• measuring and documenting ethically responsible behaviour
• ethical policy-making
• ethical academic management/leadership
• ethical governance and decision-making
• ethical teaching practices

Contributions may be submitted through two routes.
1.  Prospective authors are welcome (but not required) to submit an abstract of 500 words for consideration.  Abstracts submitted by 15 November will receive feedback from the guest editors. Full manuscripts will then be due by 15 June 2020.
2.  Alternatively, authors may submit a full manuscript directly by 15 June 2020.

All submissions of abstracts and/or full manuscripts should be made through the editorial platform (https://www.editorialmanager.com/jaet/default.aspx). Please indicate that this is a submission for the special issue.

Questions about the special issue can be directed to the guest editors (diane.pecorari@cityu.edu.hk  & wendy.sutherlandsmith@deakin.edu.au). Please use JAE at the start of the subject line in the email to help guest editors recognise your query quickly.

Today’s economics and business students are expected to be our future’s business people and potentially our tomorrow’s economic leaders and politicians. Thus, their beliefs and practices are likely to affect the definition of acceptable economics and business ethics. The empirical evaluation of the cheating phenomenon in academia has been almost exclusively focused on the US context, and the non-US studies