Effects of Personality and Information Technology on Plagiarism: An Iranian Perspective

Information technology has played a remarkably important role in developing the contemporary educational system. It not only provides easy access to enormous stores of information but also increases students' scientific efficiency. However, the availability of this technology has also led to increased plagiarism. This study attempted to explore how access to Internet technology contributes to plagiarism problems from the perspective of university students in Iran. A qualitative method to semistructured interviews with 20 students suggested important themes: uncertainty avoidance, tendency to use shortcuts to progress, symbolic certification, social learning and modeling of faculty members as mentors, and plagiarism in the name of justice. Survey data from 180 university students suggest that the personality characteristic of conscientiousness had a negative effect on using information technology to commit plagiarism.     

Seven ways to plagiarize: handling real allegations of research misconduct

As the research integrity officer at my university for two years, I handled eight allegations of plagiarism. These eight cases show that initial appearances can be mistaken, that policies for handling allegations of research misconduct cannot cover every contingency, and that many cases can be resolved collegially without resort to formal procedures. A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, February 28 – March 3, 2002, Cincinnati, Ohio. The views, opinions, and recommendations expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.     

The Ethics of Opinion in Academe: Questions for an Ethical and Administrative Dilemma

If we accept that all plagiarism is wrong, the issue is black and white. But are there more challenging questions that color the issue with shades of gray that may influence or help clarify the ethical underpinnings of the act? Does intent matter? Does the venue matter? Does the form of writing matter? What about a professor when working as a private citizen, rather than in his/her academic role? Might plagiarism be mitigated when there is no associated financial gain? Is a writer’s history that exhibits impeccable ethical integrity relevant? Should these factors, and/or other factors, even be considered in a university’s administrative response — or non-response? What might employing an ethical approach contribute to wrestling with the dilemma? The authors explore critical issues that might face a senior academic administrator when confronting the need to respond on behalf of a university to a charge of plagiarism leveled by an influential newspaper against a university professor for a social responsibility-focused opinion-editorial published in this newspaper.     

To Cheat or Not to Cheat?: The Role of Personality in Academic and Business Ethics

Past research (Lawson, 2004 Lawson, R. A. 2004. Is classroom cheating related to business students’ propensity to cheat in the \"real world\"?. Journal of Business Ethics, 49: 189–199. doi:10.1023/B: BUSI.0000015784.34148.cb[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Nonis &; Swift, 2001 Nonis, S. and Swift, C. O. 2001. An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Journal of Education for Business, 77: 69–77. doi:10.1080/08832320109599052[Taylor &; Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]) has revealed a correlation between academic and business ethics. Using a sample survey, this study extends this inquiry by examining the role of dispositional variables (neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness) and academic honesty on business ethics perceptions. Results indicate that (1) neuroticism and conscientiousness were positively related to more ethical perceptions in a work context, and (2) academic honesty partially mediated the relationship between conscientiousness and business ethics. Implications to business practitioners and educators are discussed as well as directions for future research.     

“学界热”与“行业冷”：医学伦理学落地医疗实践之思

医学伦理学是医学人文教育的基础阵地,中国过去40年医学伦理学科建设有成绩也有不足。当前医学伦理学落地医疗实践成为问题的焦点。从伦理学界的热点问题出发,描述热中有冷、冷热交加的伦理现象：应用伦理热、科研伦理热、医学伦理热,分析现象背后的原因可能是伦理观念与意识不足,理论与实践脱节及实践深度与广度不够。以此为基点寻生根之径,知的层面要自上而下多层保障;行的层面要理论联系实践,要深化内化转化;最终达到知行合一,入脑入心入行,加速医学伦理学落地生根。     

动机视角下的亲组织不道德行为

亲组织不道德行为是近年来组织行为学界广泛关注的研究议题。但是, 关于亲组织不道德行为的概念内涵, 目前还存在一定模糊性。基于动机视角, 从亲组织不道德行为的定义、特征、动机、类型等方面, 对亲组织不道德行为的概念模糊性进行细致解构与深入剖析, 形成相对系统的亲组织不道德行为概念内涵; 并据此概念内涵背后的动机逻辑, 对现有的亲组织不道德行为影响因素进行分类梳理, 阐释其对亲组织不道德行为的影响机制; 最后, 从细分类型、测量工具、研究视角、影响因素、抑制机制、影响效应与本土化等方面为后续研究提供针对性的建议。     

Community-Based Participatory Research for Improved Mental Health

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) focuses on specific community needs, and produces results that directly address those needs. Although conducting ethical CBPR is critical to its success, few academic programs include this training in their curricula. This article describes the development and evaluation of an online training course designed to increase the use of CBPR in mental health disciplines. Developed using a participatory approach involving a community of experts, this course challenges traditional research by introducing a collaborative process meant to encourage increased participation by special populations and narrow the parity gap in effective mental health treatment and services delivery.     

Clinical Audit and Reform of the UK Research Ethics Review System

There is an international consensus that medical research involving humans should only be undertaken in accordance with ethical principles. Paradoxically though, there is no consensus over the kinds of activities that constitute research and should be subject to review. In the UK and elsewhere, research requiring review is distinguished from clinical audit. Unfortunately the two activities are not always easy to differentiate from one another. Moreover, as the volume of audit increases and becomes more formal in response to the demand for evidence-based practice in medicine, the overlap between research and audit grows more acute. Arguably, similar ethical standards and systems for ensuring that those standards are met should be applied regardless of whether or not a project is classified as research or audit. At a time when the research ethics review system in the UK is undergoing significant reform it is important that the opportunity is not missed to address the longstanding research-audit problem. We discuss suggestions for further reform that addresses this issue.     

Scientific societies and whistleblowers: the relationship between the community and the individual

Formalizing shared ethical standards is an activity of scientific societies designed to achieve a collective goal of promoting ethical conduct. A scientist who is faced with the choice of becoming a “whistleblower” by exposing misconduct does so in the context of these ethical standards. Examination of ethics policies of scientific societies which are members of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP) shows a breadth of purpose and scope in these policies. Among the CSSP member societies, some ethics policies chiefly present the ethical culture of the community in an educational context and do not have enforcement procedures. Other policies are more comprehensive and include standards for certification, procedures for addressing ethical issues, and established sanctions. Of the 36 member societies of CSSP that have developed a code or adopted a code of another professional society, 18 specifically identified a responsibility to expose ethical misconduct, demonstrating an acknowledgment of the possible critical role of the whistleblower in addressing ethical issues. Scientific societies may revise their ethics codes based upon experience gained in addressing cases of ethical misconduct. In most cases, the action of a whistleblower is the initial step in addressing an ethics violation; the whistleblower may either be in the position of an observer or a victim, such as in the case of someone who discovers that his or her own work has been plagiarized. The ethics committee of a scientific society is one of several possible outlets through which the whistleblower can voice a complaint or concern. Ethical violations can include falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and other authorship disputes, conflict of interest and other serious violations. Commonly, some of these violations may involve publication in the scientific literature. Thus addressing ethical issues may be intertwined with a scientific society’s role in the dissemination of new scientific results. For a journal published by a scientific society, the editor can refer at some point to the ethics committee of the society. Whereas, in the case of a journal published by a commercial publisher, the editor may be without direct support of the associated scientific community in handling the case. The association of a journal with a scientific society may thus direct a whistleblower towards addressing the issue within the scientific community rather than involving the press or talking to colleagues who may gossip. A formal procedure for handling ethics cases may also discourage false accusers. Another advantage of handling complaints through ethics committees is that decisions to contact home institutions or funding agencies can be made by the ethics committee and are not the responsibility of the whistleblower or the editor of the journal. The general assessment is that the establishment of ethics policies, especially policies covering publication in society journals, will promote a culture supportive of whistleblowers and discouraging to false accusers. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the symposium entitled “Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t: What the Scientific Community Can Do About Whistleblowing” held during the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Seattle, Washington, 15 February, 1997.     

A Troubled Dance: Doing the Work of Research Ethics Review

The fast growing interest in the work of university ethics review boards is evident in the proliferation of research and literature in the area. This article focuses on a Research Ethics Board (REB) in the Canadian context. In-depth, open-ended interviews with REB members and findings from a qualitative study designed to examine the ethics review of school-based research are used to illustrate points raised in the paper. The author’s experiences as academic researcher, advisor to student researchers and a 3-year term as an REB member inform the discussion. Macro issues related to the general workings of the board (e.g., maintaining appropriate membership) and micro issues connected to individual REB members’ experiences of reviewing research applications are examined. The author’s goal is to contribute to a fastgrowing conversation related to the issues that influence university ethics review while drawing attention to the contribution that faculty members’ understandings of their work as REB members can make to that conversation.     

Using empirical data to inform the ethical evaluation of placebo controlled trials

There has been considerable debate about the ethical acceptability of using placebo-controls in clinical research. Although this debate has been rich in rhetoric, considering that much of this research is predicated upon the assumption that data from this research is vital to clinical decision-making, it is ironic that researchers have introduced little data into these discussions. Using some published research concerning the use of placebo-controls in clinical research in hypertension and psychiatric drug trials, I suggest some ways that such data might be incorporated into the ethical analysis concerning placebo use in clinical trials. This approach promises to be important for enhancing conceptual and scientific understanding as well as public policy decision-making. An earlier version of this paper was presented at an international conference, “Placebo: Its Action and Place in Health Research Today,” held in Warsaw, Poland on 12–13 April, 2003.     

临床研究结果发布的伦理审查辨析

《涉及人的生命科学和医学研究伦理审查办法》对于临床研究结果的发布提出了伦理审查和知情同意告知的要求。探讨临床研究的结果发布可以最大程度实现临床研究的价值,包括有利于实现临床研究的透明性,有利于增强公众的信赖,有利于落实研究参与者的知情权,并分析了研究结果发布在隐私保护、发布形式、发布时间、科研诚信和学术不端方面带来的潜在伦理问题。建议伦理委员会从隐私风险最小化、发布形式规范化、发布时间合理化三方面进行伦理审查,同时给出了加强多部门协作和跟踪审查以及参与学术不端治理的伦理审查策略建议。

     

石峻先生和伦理学研究

石峻先生对伦理学研究有很深的造诣,他认为,伦理道德问题必须提高到哲学的高度来解决,在中国传统的人性学说中包含着深厚的伦理意蕴。石先生对中国伦理思想的批判继承抱有十分强烈的自信心．认为学术研究应以过去为起点才能进步,反对对外国文化和伦理的移植,强调马克思主义哲学的指导是伦理学研究的根本。