Data falsification and question on academic integrity

In this commentary, we argue that plagiarism is not a new problem in academic publishing and data falsification in recent times has received a great attention globally. Due to lack of literature, the objective of this study is to evaluate data falsification and academic integrity. Accordingly, the study presents the academic misconduct (Falsification/Fabrication of data and Concerns/Issues About Data) case of Professor James E. Hunton, a former top ranked accounting professor from Bentley University. The study shows how research fraud/data falsification activity in the academic world lacks honesty and morality. The study offers some recommendations for the detection of plagiarism and academic misconduct. In the age of the Internet and digital era, Crossref, iThenticate, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) would help to detect plagiarism. However, the question remains on detecting data falsification in the academic world.     

论学术抄袭的两面性:以学术规范和法律规范的区分为视角

抄袭作为一种典型的学术腐败行为,不仅违反了学术道德规范,同时还违反了著作权法,并侵犯了他人的著作权。但是学术抄袭的认定标准与著作权侵权的认定标准不一致,国内学术界需要建立完善的学术道德规范与学术抄袭审查机制。学术抄袭的治理则需要司法机关、学术界与行政机构的共同参与。     

Notes on authors

Social network analysis (SNA), a method which can be used to explore networks in various contexts, has received increasing attention. Drawing on the development of European smoke-free policy, this paper explores how a mixed-method approach to SNA can be utilised to investigate a complex policy network. Textual data from public documents, consultation submissions and websites were extracted, converted and analysed using plagiarism detection software and quantitative network analysis and qualitative data from public documents and 35 interviews were thematically analysed. While the quantitative analysis enabled understanding of the network’s structure and components, the qualitative analysis provided in-depth information about specific actors’ positions, relationships and interactions. The paper establishes that SNA is suited to empirically testing and analysing networks in EU policy-making. It contributes to methodological debates about the antagonism between qualitative and quantitative approaches and demonstrates that qualitative and quantitative network analysis can offer a powerful tool for policy analysis.     

台湾学术伦理案件法律属性之分析

我国台湾地区对于触及科研不端行为的规范,统称为学术伦理规范。学术伦理案件涉及研究人员与国家机关之间、研究人员与其所在单位之间行政法律关系;涉及行政处分、行政契约、法规命令及行政规则、行政计划以及行政指导等行政行为形式;涉及行政义务履行确保、行政调查、行政程序、行政争讼及国家补偿等五套制度。学术伦理案件所涉规范与著作权法之间有部分重叠之处,也必须加以厘清。     

伦理类型的转换与赛珍珠问题的性质——论“抄袭”问题的凸显及其伦理类型前提

赛珍珠问题指＂中国人是否更容易抄袭、抄袭是否内化于中国的文化精神和气质之中＂的问题。与学术相关的伦理类型在现代发生了根本转变,表现为学术从公器变为私器,真理活动的视野由复返的变为进步的,评价标准由传承变为创新。从反向抄袭、注疏性著作、自我抄袭等问题的分析可以看出,抄袭本质上是个现代问题。＂中国人更容易抄袭＂的命题存在着历史错位,是个伪命题。     

维护学术规范和学术道德的沉思——评陈国生学术造假事件

本文以西南师范大学陈国生博士的学术抄袭、学术作假事实为例 ,强调了维护学术道德、建树学术规范的重要性和迫切性。作者呼吁 :“现在的关键是要将那种一时疏忽的失误与长期的、有意的、大范围的学术抄袭和学术作假区别开来、分别对待 ,对于前者是善意批评教育 ,而对后者决不能奉行好人主义 ,必修严肃处理 ,以正学风。     

论学术抄袭与当前的浮躁学风问题——兼谈如何进一步开展学术批评

学术批评的重心应由当前的以揭露、批判抄袭剽窃的个案为主,转移到以检讨、反思、整治低水平、重复研究和互抬桥子为主要特征的群体浮躁上来;把学术批评的强音由当今的“学术打假”、“反学术腐败”,改换成“提倡学术规范,反对学术浮躁、学术泡沫”;把学术批评的个人见义勇为的“傻瓜的事业”,真正纳入到社会主义精神文明建设的重要议程,各级学术主管部门已到了发挥其应有的作用的时候了。     

清剿学术腐败需多方努力——再评一篇语言学论文的抄袭拼凑现象及其他

肖某的语言学论文《追捧一词为何受追捧》全文框架和至少50%的文字均源于胡建刚《表达空位与忽悠流行》,是一篇不折不扣的抄袭拼凑之作。肖文对胡文的袭用主要表现为抄袭剽窃、仿造拼凑和阉割篡改。肖文的出现说明学术领域的打假还任重道远,清剿学术腐败尚需多方努力。当前学界尚有一种妄下结论的文革式学风,它同样不利于学术发展,在进行正常的学术批评时当引以为戒。     

学术不端与知识产权——以学术剽窃及其治理为视角

学术不端是当前学术界和社会舆论中的热门话题之一。学术不端涉及内容相当广泛,其中部分直接涉及知识产权侵权问题,尤以学术剽窃为典型。从著作权法的角度看,学术剽窃之作具有非独创性。学术剽窃的认定可以从前提条件和实质条件两方面把握。规制学术剽窃应以法律制度的完善为中心,融造以学术剽窃为耻的社会氛围。     

Researchers experience of misconduct in research in Malaysian higher education institutions

This article offers a qualitative analysis of research misconduct witnessed by researchers during their careers, either by research students or fellow researchers, when conducting or supervising research in their respective departments. Interviews were conducted with 21 participants from various research backgrounds and with a range of research experience, from selected universities in Malaysia. Our study found that misbehavior such as manipulating research data, misrepresentation of research outcomes, plagiarism, authorship disputes, breaching of research protocols, and unethical research management was witnessed by participants among junior and senior researchers, albeit for different reasons. This indicates that despite the steps taken by the institutions to monitor research misconduct, it still occurs in the research community in Malaysian institution of higher education. Therefore, it is important to admit that misconduct still occurs and to create awareness and knowledge of it, particularly among the younger generation of researchers. The study concludes that it is better for researchers to be aware of the behaviors that are considered misconduct as well as the factors that contribute to misconduct to solve this problem.