e-Text

NETAJI SUBHAS OPEN UNIVERSITY

Course: Research and Publication Ethics
Module: RPE-02: SCIENTIFIC CONDUCT

2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Ethics with respect to science and research
2.3 Intellectual honesty and research integrity
2.4 Scientific misconducts ( F F P )
 Falsification
 Fabrication
 Plagiarism
2.5 Redundant publications
2.6 Duplicate and overlapping publications
2.7 Salami Slicing
2.8 Selective reporting and misrepresentation of data
2.9 Summary
2.10 Questions/ Self Assessment questions
2.11 References/ Bibliography/ Select Reading

General Introduction: SCIENTIFIC CONDUCT

Research integrity may be defined as active adherence to the ethical principles and professional standards essential
for the responsible practice of research. By active adherence we mean adoption of the principles and practices as a
personal credo, not simply accepting them as impositions by rule makers. By ethical principles we mean honesty,
the golden rule, trust worthiness, and high regard for the scientific record.

“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 ones actions and to a range of practices that
characterize responsible research conduct.’’ - National Achievement Survey (NAS)".

Scientific research ethics vary by discipline and by country, and this analysis sought to understand those variations.
This course materials provides insights to learners regarding researchers, government officials, and others who
create, modify, and enforce ethics in scientific research around the world with an understanding of how ethics are
created, monitored, and enforced across scientific disciplines and across international borders.

1|Page
 Different review literatures are available across scientific disciplines which were conducted through interviews with
experts in the United States, Europe, and China. Those research had two motivations: (1) to inform researchers and
sponsors who engage in research in emerging scientific disciplines and who may face new ethical challenges, and
(2) to inform research sponsors — including government officials — who wish to encourage ethical research
without unintentionally encouraging researchers to pursue their research in other jurisdictions.

The authors analysis led to an understanding of which ethics are common across disciplines, how these ethics might
vary geographically, and how emerging topics are shaping future ethics. The authors focused on the ethics of
scientific research and how the research is conducted, rather than on how the research is applied. This distinction
excluded from this research an analysis of so-called "dual-use" applications for military purposes.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780127999432000021)
First, the reasons for the increasing interest in ensuring good scientific conduct will be discussed for the course
learners. This will be followed by an outline of the three ethical frameworks frequently used for the assessment of
research activities, a discussion of the internal ethics of science and research endeavors, and finally a look at some
specific forms of scientific misconduct, including wrong observations and analysis, plagiarism, the fabrication of
data and results, false or gift authorship, and duplicate publication, Salami slicing, Selective reporting and
misrepresentation of data etc. (The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity was published on 14
September 2018 and The Code of Conduct entered into force on 1 October 2018).

2.0 Objectives

After going through this unit learners will be able

 To provide insights to the learners regarding scientific conduct and its implication in research.
 To know about the Epistemology, Ethics and Educational Research
 To learn about Intellectual honesty and research integrity
 To conjecture about the possible Scientific misconducts
 To surmise the redundant publications
 To distinguish between 'Duplicate' and 'Overlapping publications'
 To know concerning Salami Slicing
 To infer selective reporting and misrepresentation of data
 To search for reasons, evidence and/or argument for warrant that might support one belief rather than
another

2.1 Ethics with respect to Science and Research

According to (Noro Psikiyatr Ars. 2017) United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) defines research as systematic and creative actions taken to increase knowledge about humans, culture,
and society and to apply it in new areas of interest. Scientific research is the research performed by applying
systematic and constructed scientific methods to obtain, analyze, and interpret data.

Scientific research is the neutral, systematic, planned, and multiple-step process that uses previously discovered
facts to advance knowledge that does not exist in the literature. It can be classified as observational or experimental
with respect to data collection techniques, descriptive or analytical with respect to causality, and prospective,
retrospective, or cross-sectional with respect to time (1).

2|Page
All scientific investigations start with a specific research question and the formulation of a hypothesis to answer
this question. Hypothesis should be clear, specific, and directly aim to answer the research question. A strong and
testable hypothesis is the fundamental part of the scientific research. The next step is testing the hypothesis using
scientific method to approve or disapprove it.

Scientific method should be neutral, objective, rational, and as a result, should be able to approve or disapprove the
hypothesis. The research plan should include the procedure to obtain data and evaluate the variables. It should
ensure that analyzable data are obtained. It should also include plans on the statistical analysis to be performed. The
number of subjects and controls needed to get valid statistical results should be calculated, and data should be
obtained in appropriate numbers and methods. The researcher should be continuously observing and recording all
data obtained.

Data should be analyzed with the most appropriate statistical methods and be rearranged to make more sense if
needed. Unfortunately, results obtained via analyses are not always sufficiently clear. Multiple reevaluations of
data, review of the literature, and interpretation of results in light of previous research are required. Only after the
completion of these stages can a research be written and presented to the scientific society. A well-conducted and
precisely written research should always be open to scientific criticism. It should also be kept in mind that research
should be in line with ethical rules all through its stages.

Actually, psychiatric research has been developing rapidly, possibly even more than any other medical field, thus
reflecting the utilization of new research methods and advanced treatment technologies. Nevertheless, basic
research principles and ethical considerations keep their importance.

In medical research, all clinical investigations are obliged to comply with some ethical principles. These principles
could be summarized as respect to humans, respect to the society, benefit, harmlessness, autonomy, and justice.
Respect to humans indicates that all humans have the right to refuse to participate in an investigation or to withdraw
their consent any time without any repercussions. Respect to society indicates that clinical research should seek
answers to scientific questions using scientific methods and should benefit the society. Benefit indicates that
research outcomes are supposed to provide solutions to a health problem. Harmlessness describes all necessary
precautions that are taken to protect volunteers from potential harm. Autonomy indicates that participating in
research is voluntary and with freewill. Justice indicates that subject selection is based on justice and special care
is taken for special groups that could be easily traumatized (4).

In psychiatric studies, if the patient is not capable of giving consent, the relatives have the right to consent on behalf
of the patient. This is based on the idea of providing benefit to the patient with discovery of new treatment methods
via research. However, the relatives’ consent rights are under debate from an ethical point of view. On the other
hand, research on those patients aim to directly get new knowledge about them, and it looks like an inevitable
necessity. The only precaution that could be taken to overcome this ambivalence has been the scrupulous audit of
the Research Ethic Committees. Still, there are many examples that show that this method is not always able to
prevent patient abuse (5). Therefore, it is difficult to claim autonomy when psychiatric patients are studied, and
psychiatric patients are considered among patients to require special care. (How to Conduct Scientific Research?
Noro Psikiyatr Ars. 2017 Jun; 54(2): 97–98., Published online 2017 Jun doi: 10.5152/npa.2017.0120102
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5491675/)

3|Page
Research and Research Ethics:

According to Ohdedar, A. (1993), research is a "Search or investigation directed to the discovery of some fact by
careful consideration or study of a subject," and it is a "Course of critical or scientific inquiry.” Research
methodology means the science of method as well as a body of methods or systematic procedures and techniques
required to be followed for accomplishing an activity (p.1).

On the other hand, research involves human subjects that area unit distinctive and sophisticated moral, legal, social,
and political problems. In step with Walton, N. (2018), "Research ethics is mainly interested in the analysis of
ethical issues that are raised when a researcher is involved in their research."

Every academic institution has its research guidelines. But sometimes students used to some unfair means when
they prepare their research paper. They used to this unfair means due to negligence, shortage of time, and lack of
information literacy skills. On the other hand, now most of the academic and popular information is available on
the internet.

OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH ETHICS

Walton, N. (2018), mentioned three objectives of research ethics.
 Firstly, safeguard the human participants;
 Secondly, confirm that research is conducted for the betterment of human being and society as a whole;
finally,
 Third objective is to examine specific research activities and comes for his or her moral soundness,
observation of problems like the risk of research, confidentiality protection and also the consent method.

PRINCIPLES OF RESEARCH ETHICS

According to Shamoo, A., and Resnik, D. (2015), the subsequent area units are the overall outline of some moral
principles that numerous research guidelines mentioned. All these are discussed below:
 Honesty
 Sound judgments
 Integrity
 Carefulness
 Openness
 Respect for Intellectual Property
 Confidentiality
 Accountable Publication
 Accountable Mentoring
 Respect for Colleagues
 Social Accountability

4|Page
  Non-Discrimination

Ethical use of information

What is Ethics in Research?

When most people think of ethics (or morals), they think of rules for distinguishing between right and wrong, such
as the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), a code of professional conduct like
the Hippocratic Oath ("First of all, do no harm"), a religious creed like the Ten Commandments ("Thou Shalt not
kill..."), or a wise aphorisms like the sayings of Confucius. This is the most common way of defining
"ethics": norms for conduct that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

Most people learn ethical norms at home, at school, in church, or in other social settings. Although most people
acquire their sense of right and wrong during childhood, moral development occurs throughout life and human
beings pass through different stages of growth as they mature. Ethical norms are so ubiquitous that one might be
tempted to regard them as simple commonsense. On the other hand, if morality were nothing more than
commonsense, then why are there so many ethical disputes and issues in our society?

Most societies also have legal rules that govern behavior, but ethical norms tend to be broader and more informal
than laws. Although most societies use laws to enforce widely accepted moral standards and ethical and legal rules
use similar concepts, ethics and law are not the same. Many different disciplines, institutions, and professions have
standards for behavior that suit their particular aims and goals. These standards also help members of the discipline
to coordinate their actions or activities and to establish the public's trust of the discipline.

Why is it Important?

There are several reasons why it is important to adhere to ethical norms in research. First, norms promote the aims
of research, such as knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error. For example, prohibitions against fabricating,
falsifying, or misrepresenting research data promote the truth and minimize error.

Second, since research often involves a great deal of cooperation and coordination among many different people in
different disciplines and institutions, ethical standards promote the values that are essential to collaborative work,
such as trust, accountability, mutual respect, and fairness. For example, many ethical norms in research, such
as guidelines for authorship, copyright and patenting policies, data sharing policies, and confidentiality rules in peer
review, are designed to protect intellectual property interests while encouraging collaboration. Most researchers
want to receive credit for their contributions and do not want to have their ideas stolen or disclosed prematurely.

5|Page
Third, many of the ethical norms help to ensure that researchers can be held accountable to the public. For instance,
federal policies on research misconduct, conflicts of interest, the human subjects protections, and animal care and
use are necessary in order to make sure that researchers who are funded by public money can be held accountable
to the public.
Fourth, ethical norms in research also help to build public support for research. People are more likely to fund a
research project if they can trust the quality and integrity of research.

Finally, many of the norms of research promote a variety of other important moral and social values, such as social
responsibility, human rights, and animal welfare, compliance with the law, and public health and safety. Ethical
lapses in research can significantly harm human and animal subjects, students, and the public. For example, a
researcher who fabricates data in a clinical trial may harm or even kill patients and a researcher who fails to abide
by regulations and guidelines relating to radiation or biological safety may jeopardize his health and safety or the
health and safety of staff and students.

ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN RESEARCH

It is therefore important for researchers to learn how to interpret, assess, and apply various research rules and how
to make decisions and to act ethically in various situations.

There are many other activities that the government does not define as "misconduct" but which are still regarded by
most researchers as unethical. These are sometimes referred to as "other deviations" from acceptable research
practices and include:

 Publishing the same paper in two different journals without telling the editors.
 Submitting the same paper to different journals without telling the editors.
 Not informing a collaborator of your intent to file a patent in order to make sure that you are the sole inventor.
 Including a colleague as an author on a paper in return for a favor even though the colleague did not make a
serious contribution to the paper.
 Discussing with your colleagues confidential data from a paper that you are reviewing for a journal.
 Using data, ideas, or methods you learn about while reviewing a grant or a papers without permission.
 Trimming outliers from a data set without discussing your reasons in paper.
 Using an inappropriate statistical technique in order to enhance the significance of your research.
 Bypassing the peer review process and announcing your results through a press conference without giving
peers adequate information to review your work.

6|Page
  Conducting a review of the literature that fails to acknowledge the contributions of other people in the field
or relevant prior work.
 Stretching the truth on a grant application in order to convince reviewers that your project will make a
significant contribution to the field,
 Stretching the truth on a job application or curriculum vita.
 Giving the same research project to two graduate students in order to see who can do it the fastest.
 Overworking, neglecting, or exploiting graduate or post-doctoral students.
 Failing to keep good research records.
 Failing to maintain research data for a reasonable period of time.
 Making derogatory comments and personal attacks in your review of author's submission.
 Promising a student a better grade for sexual favors.
 Using a racist epithet in the laboratory.
 Making significant deviations from the research protocol approved by your institution's Animal Care and Use
Committee or Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research without telling the committee or
the board.
 Not reporting an adverse event in a human research experiment.
 Wasting animals in research.
 Exposing students and staff to biological risks in violation of your institution's bio-safety rules.
 Sabotaging someone's work.
 Stealing supplies, books, or data.
 Rigging an experiment so you know how it will turn out.
 Making unauthorized copies of data, papers, or computer programs.

2.3 Intellectual Honesty and Research Integrity

2.3.1 Integrity in Research

Integrity characterizes both individual researchers and the institutions in which they work. For individuals, it is an
aspect of moral character and experience. 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:
7|Page
 intellectual honesty in proposing, performing, and reporting research;
 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.

Other hand, Individual scientists work within complex organizational structures. 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.

Leadership by individuals of high personal integrity helps to foster an environment in which scientists can openly
discuss responsible research practices in the face of conflicting pressures. All those involved in the research
enterprise should acknowledge that integrity is a key dimension of the essence of being a scientist and not a set of
externally imposed regulatory constraints.

8|Page
2.3.2 Integrity of the Individual Scientist
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.

2.3.3 Accuracy in Representing Contributions to Research Proposals and Reports

Accuracy in representing one's contributions to research proposals and reports requires the assignment of credit. It
is expected that researchers will not report the work of others as if it were their own. This is plagiarism. Furthermore,
they should be honest with respect to the contributions of colleagues and collaborators. Decisions regarding
authorship are best anticipated at the outset of projects rather than at their completion. In publications, it should be
possible in principle to specify each author's contribution to the work. It also is expected that researchers honestly
acknowledge the precedents on which their research is based.

2.3.4 Fairness in Peer Review

Fairness in peer review means that researchers should agree to be peer reviewers only when they can be impartial
in their judgments and only when have revealed their conflicts of interest. Peer review functions to maintain the
excellence of published scientific work and ensure a merit-based system of support for research. A delicate balance
pervades the peer-review system, because the best reviewers are precisely those individuals who have the most to
gain from “insider information”: they are doing similar work and they will be unable to “strike” from memory and
thought what they learn through the review process. Investigators serving as peer reviewers should treat submitted
manuscripts and grant applications fairly and confidentially and avoid using them inappropriately.

2.3.5 Collegiality in Scientific Interactions, Including Communications and Sharing of Resources

Collegiality in scientific interactions, including communications and sharing of resources requires that investigators
report research findings to the scientific community in a full, open, and timely fashion. At the same time, it should
be recognized that the scientific community is highly competitive. The investigator who first reports new and
important findings gets credited with the discovery.

9|Page
It is not obvious that rapid reporting is the approach that is always the most conducive to progress. 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.

Once scientific work is published, researchers are expected to share unique materials with other scientists in a
reasonable fashion to facilitate confirmation of their results. (The committee recognizes that there are limits to
sharing, especially when doing so requires a time or cost commitment that interferes with the function of the
research group.) When materials are developed through public funding, the requirement for sharing is even greater.
Public funding is based on the principle that the public good is advanced by science conducted in the interest of
humanity. This commitment to the public good implies a responsibility to share materials with others to demonstrate
reproducibility and to facilitate the replication and validation of one's work by responding constructively to inquiries
from other scientists, particularly regarding methodologies. Collegiality and sharing of resources is also an
important aspect of the interaction between trainees and their graduate or postdoctoral advisers. Students and
fellows will ultimately depart the research team, and discussion of and planning for departure should occur over the
course of their education.

2.3.6 Transparency in Conflicts of Interest or Potential Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest in research exists when the individual has interests in the outcome of the research that may
lead to a personal advantage and that might therefore, in actuality or appearance, compromise the integrity of the
research. The most compelling example is competition between financial reward and the integrity of the research
process. Religious, political, or social beliefs can also be undisclosed sources of research bias.

Many scientific advances that reach the public often involve extensive collaboration between academia and industry
(Blumenthal et al., 1996; Campbell et al., 1998; Cho et al., 2000). Such collaborations involve consulting and
advisory services as well as the development of specific inventions, and they can result in direct financial benefit
to both individuals and institutions. Conflicts of interest reside in a situation itself, not in any behavior of members
of a research team. Thus, researchers should disclose all conflicts of interest to their institutions so that the
researchers and their work can be properly managed. They should also voluntarily disclose conflicts of interest in
all publications and presentations resulting from the research.

2.3.7 Protection of Human Subjects in the Conduct of Research

10 | P a g e
The protection of individuals who volunteer to participate in research is essential to integrity in research. The ethical
principles underlying such research have been elaborated on in international codes and have been integrated into
national regulatory frameworks (in the United States, 45 C.F.R. § 46, 2001). Elements included in such frameworks
pertain to the quality and importance of the science, its risks and benefits, fairness in the selection of subjects, and,
above all, the voluntary participation and informed consent of subjects. To ensure the conformance of research
efforts with these goals, institutions carry out extensive research subject protection programs. To be successful,
such programs require high-level, functioning institutional review boards, knowledgeable investigators, ongoing
performance assessment through monitoring and feedback, and educational programs (IOM, 2001).

2.3.8 Humane Care of Animals in the Conduct of Research

The humane care of animals is essential for producing sound science and its social benefits. Researchers have a
responsibility to engage in the humane care of animals in the conduct of research. This means evaluating the need
for animals in any particular protocol, ensuring that research animals' basic needs for life are met prior to research,
and carefully considering the benefits of the research to society or to animals versus the likely harms to any animals
included as part of the research protocol. Procedures that minimize animal pain, suffering, and distress should be
implemented. Research protocols involving animals must be reviewed and approved by properly constituted bodies,
as required by law (Animal Welfare Act of 1966 [PL 89-544], inclusive of amendments passed in 1970 [PL 91-
579], 1976 [PL 94-279], 1985 [PL 99-198], and 1990 [PL 101-624] and subsequent amendments) and professional
standards (AAALAC, 2001; NRC, 1996).

2.3.9 Adherence to the Mutual Responsibilities Between Investigators and Their Research Teams

Adherence to the mutual responsibilities between investigators and members of their research teams refers to both
scientific and interpersonal interactions. The research team might include other faculty members, colleagues
(including coinvestigators), and trainees (undergraduate students, graduate and medical students, postdoctoral
fellows), as well as employed staff (e.g., technicians, statisticians, study coordinators, nurses, animal handlers, and
administrative personnel). The head of the research team should encourage all members of the team to achieve their
career goals. The interpersonal interactions should reflect mutual respect among members of the team, fairness in
assignment of responsibilities and effort, open and frequent communication, and accountability. In this regard,
scientists should also conduct disputes professionally (Gunsalus, 1998). (The American Association of University
Professors (AAUP) guidelines on academic freedom and professional ethics articulate the obligation of members
of the academic community to root their statements in fact and to respect the opinions of others [AAUP, 1987,
1999].). Mentoring relationships can extend throughout all phases of a science career, and, as such, they are

11 | P a g e
sometimes referred to as mentor-protégé or mentor-apprentice relationships, rather than mentor-trainee
relationships.
2.3.10 Mentoring and Advising
Mentor is often used interchangeably with faculty adviser. However, a mentor is more than a supervisor or an
adviser (Bird, 2001; Swazey and Anderson, 1998). An investigator or research adviser may or may not be a mentor.
Some advisers may be accomplished researchers but do not have the time, training, or ability to be good mentors
(NAS, 2000). For a trainee, “a mentoring relationship is a close, individualized relationship that develops over time
between a graduate student (or other trainee) and a faculty member (or others) that includes both caring and
guidance” (University of Michigan, 1999, p. 5). A successful mentoring relationship is based on mutual respect,
trust, understanding, and empathy (NAS, 1997). Mentoring relationships can extend throughout all phases of a
science career, and, as such, they are sometimes referred to as mentor-protégé or mentor-apprentice relationships,
rather than mentor-trainee relationships.
It should be noted that most academic research institutions play a dual role. On the one hand, they are concerned
with producing original research; on the other, with educating students. The two goals are compatible, but when
they come in conflict, it is important that the educational needs of the students not be forgotten. If students are
exploited, then they will learn by example that such behavior is acceptable.

2.3.11 Support of Integrity by the Research Institution

The individual investigator and the laboratory or research unit carry out their functions in institutions that are
responsible for the management and support of the research carried out within their domains. The institutions, in
turn, are regulated by governmental and other bodies that impose rules and responsibilities. The vigor, resources,
and attitudes with which institutions carry out their responsibilities will influence investigators' commitment and
adherence to responsible research practices.

2.3.12 Provide Leadership in Support of Responsible Conduct of Research

It takes the leadership of an institution to promulgate a culture of responsible research. This involves the
development of a vision for the research enterprise and a strategic plan. It is the responsibility of the institution
leadership to develop programs to orient new researchers to institutional policies, rules, and guidelines; to sponsor
opportunities for dialogue about new and emerging issues; and to sponsor continuing education about new policies
and regulations as they are developed. Furthermore, institutional leaders have the responsibility to ensure that such
programs are carried out, with appropriate delegation of responsibility and accountability and with adequate
resources.

12 | P a g e
2.3.13 Encourage Respect for Everyone Involved in the Research Enterprise
An environment that fosters competence and honest interactions among all participants in the investigative process
supports the integrity of research. Institutions have many legally mandated policies that foster mutual respect and
trust—for example, policies concerning harassment, occupational health and safety, fair employment practices, pay
and benefits, protection of research subjects, exposure to ionizing radiation, and due process regarding allegations
of research misconduct. It is anticipated that through a process of self-assessment, institutions can identify issues
and develop programs that further integrity in research. Fair enforcement of all institutional policies is a critical
element of the institutional commitment to integrity in research. That is not enough, however.

2.3.14 Support Systems

Within the research institution, there can be multiple smaller units (e.g., departments, divisions within a department,
research groups within a division). Within these institutional subunits, there will always be power differences
between members of the group. Consequently, research institutions require support mechanisms—for example,
ombudspersons—that research team members can turn to for help when they feel they are being treated unfairly.
Institutions need to provide guidance and recourse to anyone with concerns about research integrity (e.g., a student
who observes a lack of responsible conduct by a senior faculty member). Support systems should be accessible
(multiple entry points for those with questions) and have a record of reaching objective, fact-based decisions
untainted by personal bias or conflicts of interest (Gunsalus, 1993). Lack of recourse within the institution for those
individuals who have concerns about possible misconduct will undermine efforts to foster a climate of integrity.
Equally important to having support systems in place is the dissemination of information on how and where
individuals may seek such support. The ultimate goal for institutions should be to create a culture within which all
persons on a research team can work effectively and realize their full potential.

2.3.15 Promote Productive Interactions between Trainees and Mentors

Mentors play a special role in the development of new scientists. A mentor must consider the student's core interests
and needs in preference to his or her own. Trainees and mentors are codependent and, at times, competitive. Trainees
depend on their mentors for scientific education and training, for support, and, eventually, for career guidance and
references. Mentors tend to be role models as well. Mentors depend on trainees for performing work and bringing
fresh ideas and approaches to the research group. They can enhance the mentor's reputation as a teacher and as an
investigator. Institutions should establish programs that foster productive relations between mentors and trainees,
including training in mentoring and advising for faculty. Moreover, institutions should work to ensure that trainees
are properly paid, receive reasonable benefits and are protected from exploitation. Written guidelines,
ombudspersons, and mutual evaluations can help to reduce problems and identify situations requiring remediation.

13 | P a g e
As mentioned earlier in this unit, the dual role academic research institutions play in both producing original
research and educating students can be balanced, but when they come in conflict, educational interests of the student
should take precedence.

2.3.16 Advocate Adherence to the Rules Regarding All Aspects of the Conduct of Research, Especially
Research Involving Human Subjects and Animals
Effective advocacy by an institution of the rules involving the use of human subjects and animals in research
involves much more than simply posting the relevant federal, state, and local regulations and providing “damage
control” and formal sanctions when irregularities are discovered. At all levels of the institution, including the level
of the dean, department chair, research group leader, and individual research group member, regular affirmation of
the guiding principles underlying the rules is essential. The goal is to create an institutional climate such that anyone
who violates these guiding principles through words or deeds is immediately made aware of the behavior and, when
indicated, appropriately sanctioned.

2.3.17 Anticipate, Reveal, and Manage Individual and Institutional Conflicts of Interest
Research institutions must conduct their work in a manner that earns public trust. To do so, they must be sensitive
to any conflict of interest that might affect or appear to affect their decisions and behavior in ways that could
compromise their roles as trustworthy sources of information and policy advice or their obligations to ensure the
protection of human research subjects. As research partnerships between industry and academic institutions
continue to expand, with the promise of considerable public benefit, the management of real or perceived conflicts
of interest in research requires that institutions have a written policy on such conflicts. The policy should apply to
both institutions and individual investigators.

2.3.18 Institutional Responsibility for Investigator Conflicts of Interest

The policy on conflicts of interest should apply to individuals who are directly involved in the conduct, design, and
review of research, including faculty, trainees, students, and administrators, and should clearly state their disclosure
responsibilities. The policy should define conflicts of interest and should have means to convey an understanding
of the term to the parties involved. It should delineate the activities and the levels and kinds of research-related
financial interests that are and are not permissible, as well as those that require review and approval. The special
circumstances associated with research involving human subjects should be specifically addressed. Beyond meeting
their responsibility to ensure the dissemination and understanding of their policies, institutions should develop
means to monitor compliance equitably.

14 | P a g e
2.3.19 Offer Educational Opportunities Pertaining to Integrity in the Conduct of Research
Research institutions should provide students, faculty, and staff with educational opportunities related to the
responsible conduct of research. These offerings should encourage open discussion of the values at stake and the
ethical standards that promote responsible research practices. The core objective of such education is to increase
participants' knowledge and sensitivity to the issues associated with integrity in research and to improve their ability
to make ethical choices. It should give them an appreciation for the diversity of views that may be brought to bear
on issues, inform them about the institutional rules and government regulations that apply to research, and instill in
them the scientific community's expectations regarding proper research practice. Educational offerings should be
flexible in their approach and be cognizant of normative differences among disciplines. Such programs should offer
opportunities for the participants to explore the underlying values that shape the research enterprise and to analyze
how those values are manifested in behaviors in different research environments
It is expected that effective educational programs will empower individual researchers, students, and staff in making
responsible choices in the course of their research. Regular evaluation and improvement of the educational and
behavioral effectiveness of these educational offerings should be a part of an institutional assessment.

2.3.20 Use This Knowledge for Continuous Quality Improvement

It also requires examination of the policy-making process, the policies themselves, their execution, and the degree
to which they are understood and adhered to by those affected. If researchers and administrators believe that the
rules are excellent and that the institution applies them equitably, then the institutional commitment to integrity will
be clear.

2.3.21 Codes and Policies for Research Ethics

Given the importance of ethics for the conduct of research, it should come as no surprise that many different professional
associations, government agencies, and universities have adopted specific codes, rules, and policies relating to research ethics.
Many government agencies have ethics rules for funded researchers.

 National Institutes of Health (NIH)

 National Science Foundation (NSF)
 Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
 US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
 Singapore Statement on Research Integrity
 American Chemical Society, The Chemist Professional’s Code of Conduct
 Code of Ethics (American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science)
 American Psychological Association, Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
15 | P a g e
  Statement on Professional Ethics (American Association of University Professors)
 Nuremberg Code
 World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki

2.4 Scientific Misconducts

2.4.1 Research Misconduct -- FFP

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, or reviewing
research, or in reporting research results. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing
research, or in reporting research results.
1. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
2. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or
results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
3. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving
appropriate credit.
4. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
This definition supersedes previous definitions used by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the federal
Office of Research Integrity (ORI), and it applies to all federally supported research in the United States.
The new federal definition omits the intent to deceive the reader, previously a part of the ORI definition, as intent
is difficult to prove. Under the previous ORI definition, the copying of sentences that describe previous research
might not constitute research misconduct if the reader were not deceived about the contribution of the author.
The new federal definition also omits the phrase “serious deviation from accepted practices”, previously an
important part of the NSF definition. Under the “serious deviation” standard, to qualify as research misconduct, the
copying must deviate significantly from the norms of the Research Misconduct and Plagiarism.

The norms of an academic discipline are relevant in determining what constitutes plagiarism. Different disciplines
have different conventions, styles, and expectations for citing previous work. Some disciplines require quotation
marks or indentation, some do not. Thus, in investigating an allegation of plagiarism, a hearing panel should always
include members who understand the norms of the academic discipline in which the allegation occurred.

16 | P a g e
Fig 1. Research Misconduct

2.4.2 Common Types of Scientific Misconduct

Fabrication:

Fabrication is the process of making something from semi-finished or raw materials rather than from ready-made
components. In other words, it is the process of making something from scratch rather than assembling something.
The term also means a lie.

Fabrication or falsification involves unauthorized creation, alteration or reporting of information in an

academic activity. Examples of fabrication or falsification include the unauthorized omission of data, information,
or results in documents, reports and presentations.

How can we avoid fabrication in research?

 Be a stickler for accuracy. Develop and maintain guidelines and high standards for accuracy in the facts
you report.

 Take responsibility for every fact. Confirm every fact yourself with what you’ve observed, you’ve heard
in interviews with credible sources and what you’ve learned in authoritative documents. Attribute the facts
to your sources.

 Stick to the facts. Avoid embellishing or exaggerating for the sake of telling a more dramatic story.

 Be aware of the legal risks. Fabrication not only damages your career and the reputation of your
organization. It can result in legal liability if your fabrication could harm someone’s reputation.

Falsification:

Falsification is a fraudulent or intentionally false statement on any application, certificate, report, or record. It is
fraudulent or intentionally false entry on any application, certificate, report, or record required be using, completing,

17 | P a g e
or retaining for compliance; or a reproduction, for fraudulent purposes, of any application, certificate, report, or
record.

Examples of falsification include:

 Presenting false transcripts or references in application for a program.

 Submitting work which is not your own or was written by someone else

 Lying about a personal issue or illness in order to extend a deadline

Plagiarism:
Plagiarism means “use of other people's writings, creative work, ideas, art, words, and expressions or otherwise
listing the source of information without giving credit to the main author or creator.” In a nutshell, Plagiarism is
stealing or academic theft. Lowa State University (2018) states that Plagiarism is also misrepresentation and
includes handing in someone else's work, ideas, or answers as your own. According to UGC, “Plagiarism means
the practice of taking someone else’s work or idea and passing them as one’s own” (UGC, 2018). Mainly plagiarism
happens inadvertently through sloppy research or on purpose through unethical use of information. It is a serious
disciplinary offense (Biswas, S. K., 2019b, p361).

Types of Plagiarism
There are many kinds of plagiarism, but broadly it divided into four types-
 Deliberate Plagiarism
 Accidental Plagiarism
 Mosaic Plagiarism
 Self Plagiarism

Common forms of Plagiarism and Other Academic Dishonesty

Any individual publishing the same thing in another format in a different publication naming as a "New" without
referring or citing phrased as self-plagiarism. According to these four sorts of plagiarism, some common forms of
plagiarism and other academic dishonesty are:
 Misrepresentation of others work as your own;
 Using somebody else's words, ideas without giving credit or permission;
 Falsification of data and quotations;
 Receiving unaccredited intervention on an assignment or test;
 Duplicity in testing;
 Violating guidelines of instructors for individual assignments;
 Sabotaging and damaging others work;

18 | P a g e
  Ghostwriting
 Copy and paste

Best Practices for Avoid Plagiarism

Plagiarism is not unavoidable. There are many ways to avoid plagiarism, such as knowing good time management,
acquire good research habits, and being responsible for your learning (Lata, 2014). According to Lata (2014)
following are some specific ways:

A. Complete your Research at Stipulated Time

We know good research takes time. So, don't delay together in your research and assignments.
B. Work Commitment
If you don't perceive an assignment, then consult your faculty member or guide and solve the matter. However,
don't take it otherwise and also the 'easy means out' by consulting your class fellow, roommate, and friends for
dealing with previous assignments or thesis (Lata, 2014).
C. Be Scrupulous
To avoid plagiarism, draft your paper conscientiously.
D. Conscientious Citation
It's needed to cite conscientiously other's ideas, words, and data, which you are merely using directly or indirectly
in your writings. The information of a book, journal, website, and whether or not it's text, an illustration, graphic
material, table and charts, all these are required to cite conscientiously (Lowa State University, 2018). Not solely
that, when you need to use information from other sources, then it is necessary to be mention in quotes.

Penalties of Misconduct
Penalties for plagiarism depend on the amount which has been plagiarized and whether there are previous offences,
but include:
 Repeating the piece of work with a maximum possible mark of 40% for the piece of work in question.
 Repeating the piece of work with a maximum possible mark of 40% for the whole module.
 Repeating the piece of work with a maximum possible mark of 0% for the whole module.
 Permanent exclusion from the Institute/University. Some Penalties for Plagiarism When verified, violations
of academic honesty may lead to the following penalties – imposed singly or in combination depending on
the severity of the offence:
Penalties
Penalties in the cases of plagiarism shall be imposed on students pursuing studies at the level of Masters and
Research programs and on researcher, faculty & staff of the HEI only after academic misconduct on the part of the

19 | P a g e
individual has been established without doubt, when all avenues of appeal have been exhausted and individual in
question has been provided enough opportunity to defend himself or herself in a fair or transparent manner.
Penalties in case of plagiarism in submission of thesis and dissertations Institutional Academic Integrity Panel
(IAIP) shall impose penalty considering the severity of the Plagiarism. In India UGC identified the four levels of
plagiarism.
i. Level 0: Similarities upto 10% - Minor Similarities, no penalty.
ii. Level 1: Similarities above 10% to 40% - Such student shall be asked to submit a revised script
within a stipulated time period not exceeding 6 months.
iii. Level 2: Similarities above 40% to 60% - Such student shall be debarred from submitting a
revised script for a period of one year.
iv. Level 3: Similarities above 60% -Such student registration for that programme shall be
cancelled.

Penalty on repeated plagiarism

Such student shall be punished for the plagiarism of one level higher than the previous level committed by him/her.
In case where plagiarism of highest level is committed then the punishment for the same shall be operative.

Penalty in case where the degree/credit has already been obtained

If plagiarism is proved on a date later than the date of award of degree or credit as the case may be then his/her
degree or credit shall be put in abeyance for a period recommended by the IAIP and approved by the Head of the
Institution.

Penalties in case of plagiarism in academic and research publications

I. Level 0: Similarities up to 10%
i. Minor similarities, no penalty.
II. Level 1: Similarities above 10% to 40%
i. Shall be asked to withdraw manuscript.
III. Level 2: Similarities above 40% to 60%
i) Shall be asked to withdraw manuscript.
ii) Shall be denied a right to one annual increment.
iii) Shall not be allowed to be a supervisor to any new Master’s, M.Phil., Ph.D. Student/scholar for a period
of two years.
IV. Level 3: Similarities above 60%

20 | P a g e
 i) Shall be asked to withdraw manuscript.
ii) Shall be denied a right to two successive annual increments.
iii) Shall not be allowed to be a supervisor to any new Master’s, M.Phil., Ph.D. Student/scholar for a period of
three years.

Penalty on repeated plagiarism

Shall be asked to withdraw manuscript and shall be punished for the plagiarism of one level higher than the lower
level committed by him/her. In case where plagiarism of highest level is committed then the punishment for the
same shall be operative. In case level 3 offence is repeated then the disciplinary action including
suspension/termination as per service rules shall be taken by the HEI.

Penalty in case where the benefit or credit has already been obtained
If plagiarism is proved on a date later than the date of benefit or credit obtained as the case may be then his/her
benefit or credit shall be put in abeyance for a period recommended by IAIP and approved by the Head of the
Institution.

Software to check Plagiarism

Name of the Software Purpose

PlagScan Text Plagiarism Checking

Reverse Photo Lookup Tool Image Plagiarism Checking

PlagHunter Image Plagiarism Checking

Unicheck Text Plagiarism Checking

Copyleaks AI & Machine learning based text plagiarism checker
iThenticate Text Plagiarism Checking

Drillbit Data Plagiarism Checking

2.5 Redundant Publications

Redundant publication occurs when multiple papers are written without reference in the text, and share the same
text, data or results. ... Because of the availability of these tools, there is a possibility that many authors
who published abstracts or draft copies of manuscripts will be accused of self-plagiarism.

21 | P a g e
We all know that duplicate publication of an article is considered self-plagiarism and is not allowed in peer-reviewed
journals. The Journal of Digital Imaging has a statement in the submission process that a manuscript has not been
submitted to any other journals for publication. This is a common statement that peer-reviewed journals often use.
Accusations of duplicate publications have wide ranging consequences. For example, such an accusation may bar
all the authors on a manuscript from future submissions to a journal, the author’s Department Chair or Dean may
be informed, an internal investigation may be launched, the local newspaper might report on scientific misconduct
by faculty members, and the repercussions may effect a person’s promotion, tenure, and reputation.

How can an author get caught in the position of unknowingly submitting a manuscript containing material that
could be considered a duplicate publication?

Duplicate publication includes the text in an article, but it also includes figures and data sets previously published.
If an author uses a figure in an article published in a blog, an abstract, another journal article, a teaching file, or
published lecture notes, that figure may have a copyright associated with it or it at the very least it has been
published. This figure could be a graph or drawing produced by the author or a radiology image. Once it has been
published, it cannot be included in a future article without acknowledgement and for most peer review journals, the
ability to assign the copyright to that figure to the journal accepting the manuscript for publication. If the author
uses a dataset for an article, that dataset has been published. Different parts of the dataset can be used for subsequent
articles but not the prior published dataset.

When an author wishes to present research at a scientific meeting, it is common to submit an abstract to the
organization holding the meeting and if accepted, that abstract could be published by the organization either in a
proceedings format or online. Often, the author assigns the copyright to the organization publishing the abstract.
Signing copyright forms is part of the publication process and most of us sign them without much thought about
the future consequences. But suppose the author who presented the paper at a scientific meeting went on to produce
a manuscript and included figures and text from the original abstract. That is duplicate publication.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

2.6.Duplicate and Overlapping Publications

Publications overlap is the presentation of redundant ideas or data in multiple papers by the same authors—is a
practice that warrants serious discussion. ... For example, authors may ask the same question with different datasets,
or they may ask different questions with the same dataset.

What is the difference between the redundant publication and duplicate publication?

22 | P a g e
Duplicate submission / publication: This refers to the practice of submitting the same study to two journals or
publishing more or less the same study in two journals. ... “Self-plagiarism” is considered a form of redundant
publication. It concerns recycling or borrowing content from previous work without citation.

________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.7 Salami Slicing

In essence, salami slicing refers to splitting of data derived from a single research idea into multiple smaller
“publishable” units or “slices.” This practice is neither new nor entirely culpable.

In the race to publish more papers, some researchers indulge in unethical practices, one of which is salami
slicing. Salami slicing means fragmenting one study and publishing it in multiple papers. This practice is
considered improper and can affect your career, besides being damaging to science.

In the race to publish more papers, some researchers indulge in unethical practices, one of which is salami slicing.
Salami slicing means fragmenting one study and publishing it in multiple papers. This practice is considered
improper and can affect your career, besides being damaging to science. This unit explains in detail what salami
slicing is and why it is considered unethical. It also includes opinions of journal editors on the issue.

Why Salami Slicing is unethical ?

Minor or salami slicing is considered segmental publication or part publication of results or reanalysis derived from
a single study. Authors do it to increase the number of publications and citations. It is considered unethical and it is
taken in a bad taste because for a reader it may cause distortion in the conclusions drawn. Publication of the results
of a single study in parts in different journals might lead to over-judgement. Wrong conclusions may be drawn from
a study if it is done on a fixed number of subjects but the data are being presented in fragments in different journals.

When an author needs to submit a report that has been already published or closely related to another paper that has
been submitted elsewhere, the letter of submission should clearly say so. The authors should declare and provide
copies of the related submission to help the editor decide how to handle the submission. Authors who attempt to
duplicate publication without such notification can face prompt rejection of the submitted manuscript. If the editor
was not aware of the violations and the article has already been published, then the article might warrant retraction
with or without the author’s explanation or approval.

2.8. Selective Reporting and Misrepresentation of Data

Misrepresentation of data
As a minimal answer to this question, one can define 'misrepresentation of data' as 'communicating honestly
23 | P a g e
reported data in a deceptive manner. ... Other ways of misrepresenting data include drawing unwarranted
inference from data, creating deceptive graphs of figures, and using suggestive language for rhetorical effect.

Misrepresentation of Data:- The concept of ‘misrepresentation,’ unlike ‘fabrication’ and ‘falsification,’ is neither
clear nor uncontroversial. Most scientists will agree that fabrication is making up data and falsification is changing
data. But what does it mean to misrepresent data? As a minimal answer to this question, one can define
‘misrepresentation of data’ as ‘communicating honestly reported data in a deceptive manner.’ But what is deceptive
communication? The use of statistics presents researchers with numerous opportunities to misrepresent data. For
example, one might use a statistical technique, such as multiple regression or the analysis of variance, to make one's
results appear more significant or convincing than they really are. Or one might eliminate (or trim) outliers when
‘cleaning up’ raw data. Other ways of misrepresenting data include drawing unwarranted inference from data,
creating deceptive graphs of figures, and using suggestive language for rhetorical effect.
However, since researchers often disagree about the proper use of statistical techniques and other means of
representing data, the line between misrepresentation of data and ‘disagreement about research methods’ is often
blurry. Since ‘misrepresentation’ is difficult to define, many organizations have refused to characterize
misrepresenting data as a form of scientific misconduct. On the other hand, it is important to call attention to the
problem of misrepresenting data, if one is concerned about promoting objectivity in research, since many of
science's errors and biases result from the misrepresentation of data.

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.

Unethical Practices in Scientific Research

 Intentional negligence in the acknowledgment of previous work
 Deliberate fabrication of data we have collected
 Deliberate omission of known data that does not agree with the hypothesis
 Passing another researcher’s data as one’s own
 Publication of results without the consent of all of the researchers
 Failure to acknowledge all of the researchers who performed the work
 Conflict of interest
 Repeated publication of too-similar results or reviews Breach of confidentiality

Causes of Scientific Misconduct

 Conflict of interest—personal, professional, and financial
 Policies regarding human subjects, live vertebrate animal subjects in research, and safe laboratory practices
 Mentor/mentee responsibilities and relationships
 Collaborative research, including collaborations with industry
 Peer review
 Data acquisition and laboratory tools management, sharing, and ownership
 Research misconduct and policies for handling misconduct
 Responsible authorship and publication
24 | P a g e
  The scientist as a responsible member of society, contemporary ethical issues in biomedical research, and
the environmental and societal impacts of scientific research.

Retraction of papers
Some of the consequences of plagiarized scientific research publications.
The Oxford English Dictionary (2018) defines retraction as "the action or fact of revoking or rescinding a decision,
decree, etc." A more thorough definition is, "the action of withdrawing a statement, accusation, etc., which is now
admitted to be erroneous or unjustified... recantation; an instance of this; a statement of making such a withdrawal."

When a retraction is applied to academic or scholarly publishing, it indicates that an article was withdrawn from
the publication in which it appeared after it was published. A retraction is issued through a decision made by the
publication's editorial board. Sometimes a retraction can be requested by an author, often due to errors, and the
editorial board may agree to grant one.

In a database search, an article may have "RETRACTED" appear before its title in its brief record. A retraction
notice may also appear in search results, and its title may begin with "Retraction" followed by the title of the
work. Also, the full text of a research article may be labeled, "Retracted." Each of these indicate that an article has
been retracted. See the "Identifying Retractions" tab for examples.
Source: Oxford University Press (2018, July). OED online. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/164384

Consequences of Scientific Misconducts

Scientific Misconduct

The violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific
research...(research that) deviates from practices commonly accepted in the discipline or in the academic and
research communities generally in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research and creative activities.

Sooner or later ....... ethical violations get exposed. Some recent examples:

27 JULY 2007 VOL317 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

Science 24 MAY 2002 VOL 296 SCIENCE, p 1376

Retraction
W E W ISH T O R ET R AC T OUR R EP ORT "CDX2 GE NE EXP R ESSION AN D T R OP HEC T ODE R M LINE AGE
specification in mouse embryos 1 ' (7), Allegations of research misconduct were received by the -S 1
0
University of Missouri-Columbia (MU) Provost, and an investigation found that the first author Scl&?ce 2ZT, 1022 fll February 2000)
(K,D,) engaged in research misconduct by intentionally falsifying and fabricating digital
images in the preparation of Figs, 41; 4N; 4S; 2G; 3, J to L; S2, V to X; and S6,1 to K accom¬
panying the Science article. In addition, the original raw image files for the majority ofthe fig¬
ures in the paper have not been located (the exceptions being the confocal scanning images in
Figs, SI, S3, S4, S5, and S6), raising the possibility that the data they represent may also be
suspect. We have decided to withdraw the article in its entirety in view of the fact that the paper
was founded at least in part on falsified or fabricated images.
The corresponding author (R,M,R,) takes responsibility for placing excessive trust in his co¬
worker and for not assuring that a complete set of raw data existed at the time the questions first
arose about the paper. We deeply regret any scientific misconceptions that have resulted from
the publication of this article.
The first author resigned from MU shortly after the allegations of research misconduct were
received and could not be found to sign the retraction,
R. MICHAEL ROBERTS/ M. SIVAGURU , 2 H. Y. YQNG 3
division of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA. 5 Institute for Genomic Biology,
University
of Illinois, Urbana-Charnpaign, IL 61301, USA.^BK^l Dental Research Institute, College of Dentistry, Seoul National

Striking resemblance. Published data from studies of different de¬

University, Z8Yongun-dong, Chongno-gu, Seoul 110-7 /19, Korea.

Reference
1. K. Deb. M. Sivaguru. H. Y Yong. R. IW Roberts, Science 311. 992 (2006). vices revealed a similarity in recorded "noise." Schon says the bottom
figure was sent to Science by mistake (see cor recti on, p. 1400),

RETRACTED: Fluorescence lifetime increase by

introduction of F— ions in ytterbium-doped TeO2-
based gl
Journal of , Volume 393, Issues
1-2, 3 Ma
Guonian Dai, Junjie Zhang, Shiqing Xu
and Zhon

RETRACTED: Effect of F— ions on spectroscopic

properties of Yb3+-doped zinc-tellurite glasses •
Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids, Volume 66,
Issue 6, June 2005, Pages 1107-1111
Guonian Wang, Junjie Zhang, Shixun Dai, Jianhu Yang
and Zhonghong Jiang

From Science@Direct (Elsevier)

25 | P a g e
Consequences of Retracting a Paper

Retracting a paper has historically been associated with academic fraud. Therefore, if you self-retract your paper,
will other authors trust and cite your published work in the future? Will you be able to get future funding? Will you
be able to get a job?

The good news is that the academic community tends to forgive genuine mistakes. Scientists learn from these
mistakes; it also “cleans up’’ the literature, benefitting everyone. Hence, encouraging self-retraction is beneficial to
the scientific community. It is the right thing to do.
Having an “author self-retracted article” on your resume will raise questions, but you can use it to your advantage.
It shows that you:
 Have integrity.
 Can self-reflect and critically evaluate your work.
 Are open to anyone challenging your assumptions.
 Learn from your mistakes.

Self-Retraction is Only for Honest Mistakes

The withdrawal of published papers by authors should be encouraged for reasons mentioned above. However, could
this be abused by dishonest authors as a chance to avoid allegations of misconduct for publishing fraudulent
research?

Perhaps dishonest researchers could get away with this once or twice, but the research community will raise
questions if an author self-retracts many papers. Either way, we accomplish the desired end-result of cleaning up
the literature. Journals will no doubt have systems in place to minimize the abuse of self-retraction.

How to Self-Retract a Paper

No journal (or author) wants to retract a paper that they have published. Since mistakes do happen, journals
have retraction guidelines in place. These guidelines help academic publishers maintain a certain standard of quality
and ensure consistency within a field. These guidelines may differ between journals. However, the overall approach
is the same. Here is what you should do:
Inform all (if any) co-authors of the paper about the mistake.
Write to the journal editor explaining your reason for self-retraction.
Ask them for their self-retraction guidelines.
In some cases, seek legal advice. The team involved in the publication of the paper, from researchers to editors
decides it.

Researchers Who Have Confessed their Mistakes

There is research life after self-retraction. Nathan Georgette, for example, a Harvard Medical School student
retracted the first paper he published. His honesty did not impact his career negatively.
Another researcher, Pamela Ronald from the University of California, took her self-retraction a step further. She
was working on mislabelled bacterial strains; these mislabelled bacterial strains and their protein assay was
unreliable. Not only did she self-retract her papers, she told the research community about her mistakes at a
conference. It was the most challenging talk of her life. However, scientists at the conference congratulated her for
doing the right thing.

Ultimately, trustworthy scientific literature is essential for all individuals. Rather than slandering, applaud self-
retraction. From the examples listed here, it seems that the academic community appreciates it when researchers
admit their mistakes and self-retract an article. Will you cite an author who has self-retracted a paper? Share your
thoughts in the comments below.

26 | P a g e
RESEARCH INTEGRITY
Elements of Professionalism
➢ Intellectual honesty
➢ Excellence in thinking and doing
➢ Collegiality and openness
➢ Autonomy and responsibility
➢ Self-regulation

Scientific Integrity and Research Ethics

➢ Act only in such a way that you would want your actions to become a universal law, applicable to everyone in a
similar situation.
➢ Act in such a way that you always treat humanity (whether oneself or other), as both the means of an action, but
also as an end.
➢ Act as though you were a law-making member (and also the king) of a hypothetical “kingdom of ends”, and
therefore only in such a way that would harmonize with such a kingdom if those laws were binding on all others.

IFLA --- The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity was published on 14 September 2018 and The
Code of Conduct entered into force on 1 October 2018. As per IFLA :

Why is this code of conduct important:

 It gives an overview of rights and duties for individual researchers as well as research groups or organizations
dealing with research.
 This Code has been adopted by many Dutch organizations like e.g. he Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and
Sciences (KNAW) and others.
 The code also respects the scope of international framework documents such as the Singapore Statement on
Research Integrity (2010),the OECD’s Best Practices for Ensuring Scientific Integrity and Preventing
Misconduct (2007) and ALLEA’s recently revised European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017)

Contents of the Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

It covers and describes five ethical principles:
 Honesty
 Scrupulousness
 Transparency
 Independence
 Responsibility

Many people wonder if research ethics and research integrity are the same things. Well it is clear that it is closely
related. In most cases they say that research ethics is a subset of research integrity. We could say Research Integrity
covers the full research process and research ethics focuses more on the principle of avoiding harm to research
subjects.

2.9 Summary

Ethics are standards used to differentiate acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Adhering to ethical standards in
scientific research is noteworthy because of many different reasons. First, these standards promote the aims of
research, such as knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error. For example, prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying,
27 | P a g e
or misrepresenting research data promote truth and minimize error. In addition, ethical standards promote values
that are essential to collaborative work, such as trust, accountability, mutual respect, and fairness. Many ethical
standards in research, such as guidelines for authorship, copyright and patenting policies, data-sharing policies, and
confidentiality rules in peer review, are designed to protect intellectual property interests while encouraging
collaboration. Many ethical standards such as policies on research misconduct and conflicts of interest are necessary
to ensure that researchers can be held accountable to the public. Last but not the least, ethical standards of research
promote a variety of other important moral and social values, such as social responsibility, human rights, animal
welfare, compliance with the law, and public health and safety (2). In conclusion, for the good of science and
humanity, research has the inevitable responsibility of precisely transferring the knowledge to new generations (3).

Every academic institution has its research guidelines. But sometimes students used to some unfair means when
they prepare their research paper. Many different disciplines, institutions, and professions have standards for
behavior that suit their particular aims and goals. These standards also help members of the discipline to coordinate
their actions or activities and to establish the public's trust of the discipline. There are several reasons why it is
important to adhere to ethical norms in research.

It is therefore important for researchers to learn how to interpret, assess, and apply various research rules and how
to make decisions and to act ethically in various situations.

In publications, it should be possible in principle to specify each author's contribution to the work. Investigators
serving as peer reviewers should treat submitted manuscripts and grant applications fairly and confidentially and
avoid using them inappropriately. Collegiality and sharing of resources is also an important aspect of the interaction
between trainees and their graduate or postdoctoral advisers. Students and fellows will ultimately depart the research
team, and discussion of and planning for departure should occur over the course of their education. Thus, researchers
should disclose all conflicts of interest to their institutions so that the researchers and their work can be properly
managed. They should also voluntarily disclose conflicts of interest in all publications and presentations resulting
from the research. To be successful, such programs require high-level, functioning institutional review boards,
knowledgeable investigators, ongoing performance assessment through monitoring and feedback, and educational
programs (IOM, 2001). Research protocols involving animals must be reviewed and approved by properly
constituted bodies, as required by law (Animal Welfare Act of 1966). In this regard, scientists should also conduct
disputes professionally (Gunsalus, 1998).
As per IFLA If scientific and scholarly research is to perform this role properly, research integrity is essential. This
holds true for all disciplines. Research in the sciences and the humanities derives its status from the fact that it is a
process governed by standards. That normativity is partly methodological and partly ethical in nature, and can be
expressed in terms of a number of guiding principles: honesty, scrupulousness, transparency, independence and
responsibility. Researchers who are not guided by these principles risk harming both the quality and the
trustworthiness of research. This can take the form of direct damage, for example to the environment or to patients,
and can undermine public trust in scientific and scholarly research as well as mutual trust between individual
researchers.

The concept of integrity in research cannot, however, be reduced to a one-line definition. For a scientist, integrity
embodies above all the individual's commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility. It is an aspect
28 | P a g e
of moral character and experience. For an institution, it is a commitment to creating an environment that promotes
responsible conduct by embracing standards of excellence, trustworthiness, and lawfulness and then assessing
whether researchers and administrators perceive that an environment with high levels of integrity has been created.
This unit has described multiple practices that are most likely to promote responsible conduct. Individuals and
institutions should use these practices with the goal of fostering a culture in which high ethical standards are the
norm, ongoing professional development is encouraged, and public confidence in the scientific enterprise is
preserved.

Now a day, in the rapidly changing paradigm of technology, so we found that sometimes pupils fall under plagiarism
due to not knowing when and how to cite, how to paraphrase, or summarize it. There are so many information
sources available in market and web, but a library collects and preserves mainly such sources which fulfill the
legitimate need of their users. In this regard, this article critically discusses various types of literary concepts,
terminologies, and definitions of misconducts with plagiarism and its consequences. Principles are the basis of
integrity in research. They should guide individual researchers as well as other parties involved in research, such as
the institutions where it is conducted, publishers, scientific editors, funding bodies and scientific and scholarly
societies – all of which, given their role and interest in responsible research practices, may be expected to foster
integrity. (According to IFLA).

KEY TERMS SIMPLIFIED

The word "ethics" is derived from the Greek word ‘ethos’ (meaning a person’s character, nature, or disposition)
➢ Relating to morals, treating of moral questions; morally correct, honorable… Set of principles of morals…
Science of morals, moral principles, rules of conduct, whole field of moral science
➢ distinction between right and wrong or good and evil, in relation to actions, volitions, or character of responsible
beings
What is scientific conduct in research? https://www.mvorganizing.org/what-is-scientific-conduct-in-
research/

What is scientific conduct in research?

Scientific method should be neutral, objective, rational, and as a result, should be able to approve or disapprove the
hypothesis. The research plan should include the procedure to obtain data and evaluate the variables. It should
ensure that analyzable data are obtained.

What do you mean about scientific conduct in research and misconduct in research and publication?

Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the
publication of professional scientific research. Danish definition: “Intention or gross negligence leading to
fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist”.
Principles for good scientific conduct. https://www.dtu.dk/english/research/research-
29 | P a g e
framework/principles_for_good_scientific_conduct

Principles for Good Scientific Practice:

All research carried out at DTU must be of high quality and reliability. A part of conducting reliable research of
high quality is compliance with the principles for good scientific practice. These principles are understood partly
through a description of unwanted behaviours, defined as either scientific misconduct or questionable research
practice, and partly through guidelines for what behaviours are wanted in connection with e.g. publishing research
results and attribution of authorship. In 2015, DTU ratified the Danish code of conduct for research integrity and
has, based on this, formulated its own DTU code of conduct.

2.10 Questions/ Self Assessment Questions

Answer all questions

1. Answer any two

a. Learning ethical decision making

b. What is Digital Library and what is Digital Rights Management (DRM)?
c. What is a citation? Relation with academic performance
d. Scientific Integrity and Research Ethics
e. Causes of Scientific Misconduct

2. (a) What is Plagiarism ? (b) Types of plagiarism , (c) Plagiarism Detection Software-- any two,

Or
Principles of research ethics ---- Explain in relation to Sharing Scientific Knowledge and Laboratory Practice.

3. Explain (a)Plagiarism and it is Kind, (b). Common forms of Plagiarism and Other Academic Dishonesty, (c).
UGC Plagiarism Penalty for Students
Or
(a) Why Publish? (b) What is publishable and What is not acceptable (c). Plagiarism Vs Copyright

2.11 References/ Bibliography/ Select Reading

1. Çaparlar CÖ, Dönmez A. What is Scientific Research and How Can it be Done? Turk J Anaesthesiol
Reanim. 2016;44:212–8. https://doi.org/10.5152/TJAR.2016.34711. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google
Scholar]
2. Resnik DB. What is Ethics in Research & Why is it Important? Natonal Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences; 2015. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/ [Google Scholar]
3. Ruacan S. Bilimsel araştırma ve yayınlarda etik ilkeler. Gazi Tıp Dergisi. 2005;16:147–149. [Google
Scholar]
4. Uluoğlu C. Ulusal Sempozyum. Ankara: Ulakbim Ulusal Veri Tabanları; 2009. Araştırma etiği. Sağlık
Bilimlerinde Süreli Yayıncılık 7; pp. 47–52. [Google Scholar]
5. Oğuz NY. Ethical Issues in Scientific Publishing. Klinik Psikiyatri Dergisi. 1998;2:67–72. [Google
Scholar]

30 | P a g e
 6. Ahmed, R. K. Abbas (2015). Overview of Different Plagiarism Detection Tools. International Journal of
Futuristic Trends in Engineering and Technology. Vol. 2 (10), 1-3. Retrieved from: www.researchgate.net,
on 03.02.2020.
7. Bird, S. J. and Dustira, A. K. (2000). New common federal definition of research misconduct in the United
States. Science and Engineering Ethics 6: 123-130.
8. Biswas S K and Chakraborty Arun Kumar (2020). Information Management Systems in College Libraries:
A Study on College Libraries of Nadia District in West Bengal. College Libraries (An English Quarterly)
Vol. 35, No. I, 202, Pp.22-34.
9. Biswas, S. K. (2019a). Information Literacy Awareness and Role of Libraries: A Study on Students and
Faculty Users of Undergraduate College Libraries under University of Kalyani in West Bengal. (Ph.D.
Thesis).The University of Calcutta.
10. Biswas, S. K. (2019b).Understanding Plagiarism and its Consequences with Research ethics. In S. R. Hatua,
Z. Rahaman & S. Naskar (Eds.), Trends in LIS Education, Research & Practice IV: Libraries for All:
Exploring the Role of Public Libraries and Information Centres for Sustainable Development: Proceedings
of the International Society for Theoretical Psychology 1999 Conference (pp. 358-366). Kolkata:
Department of LIS Rabindra Bharati University.
11. Chakraborty Arun Kumar (2019). Role of Public Libraries as Community Information Hub, ESHONA :
Journal of Gurudas College, 2019.
12. Chakraborty Arun Kumar, Dey Sumita and Gopa Dasgupta (2014). Significance of Web 0.0-4.0, Semantic
web, Cloud Computing and Drupal in Concomitant to Library/ Information/ Knowl-edge Centres Manage-
ment. International Journal of Digital Library Systems (IJDLS), 4(2), 2014, pp. 1-15
13. Chakrabarti, B.(1993). Library and Information society. Calcutta: The World Press Pvt. Ltd.
14. Doyle, C.S. 2003. A concept for the information age. [Online]. Retrieved on May 12, 2017, from
http://learning.kern.org/tlc_resources/stories/ storyReader$25 Federal Register, October 14, 1999.
15. Lowa State University. (2018). Understanding Plagiarism: Information Literacy Guide. Retrieved from
http://instr.iastate.libguides.com/understanding_plagiarism. on September 28, 2018
16. McCutchen, C. W. (1994). Plagiarism: a tale of telltale words. Journal of Information Ethics 3: 48-50.
17. Parrish, D. (1995). Scientific misconduct and the plagiarism cases. Journal of College and University Law
21: 517-554
18. UGC (2018). University Grants Commission (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of
Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2018. Retrieved from
19. https://www.ugc.ac.in/ugc_notices.aspx on 20.01.2019.
20. The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity was published on 14 September 2018 and The
Code of Conduct entered into force on 1 October 2018.
https://www.vsnu.nl/files/documents/Netherlands%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20for%20Research%20I
ntegrity%202018.pdf

Websites:
1. https://blogs.ifla.org/arl/2019/11/19/netherlands-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity/
2. https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/digital-library
3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/digital-libraries
4. https://www .Redundant Publication—How to Avoid Duplication - NCBI - NIH
5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC4722031
6. https://www.jpgmonline.com/documents/author/25/8_Momen_3.pdf
7. https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/fabrication/
8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329415101_Research_Misconduct_and_Plagiarism
9. http://www.retractionwatch.org.
10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles › PMC4722031
11. https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/7771545_academic-integrity-Regulation2018.pdf
31 | P a g e
12. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/what-is-salami-slicing
tactic/articleshow/77868465.cmshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_tactics#:~:text=Salami%20tactics
%2C%20also%20known%20as,alliances%20used%20to%20overcome%20opposition.&text=In%20this
%20fashion%2C%20the%20opposition,virtually%20gone%20in%20its%20entirety.
13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-
science/misrepresentation#:~:text=As%20a%20minimal%20answer%20to,data%20in%20a%20deceptive
%20manner.&text=Other%20ways%20of%20misrepresenting%20data,suggestive%20language%20for%
20rhetorical%20effect
14. https://www.enago.com/academy/is-self-retraction-bad-for-a-researchers-career/

32 | P a g e