Research and Publication Ethics PDF

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 scie...

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