Ethics, Quality measures and Plagiarism issues in Research

Prof Navita ShrivastavaDepartment of Computer Science,A.P.S.U., RewaE-mail: navita.srivastava@gmail.com

Agenda

Research Ethics

Common quality measures of research

Plagiarism issues in research

Research Ethics CoversMany Areas Use of human subjects in research

Informed consent

Use of animals in research Appropriate care/use

Moral debates Stem cell research, impact of technology (nuclear

weapons, genetic screening), etc.

Professional issues (today's topic) Authorship, confidentiality, Plagarism etc.

Avoiding Ethical Dilemmas

1. Know the rules. How are researchers supposed to behave? Who says so?

2. Know your rights & responsibilities. Co-authorship Ownership of intellectual property Conflicts of interest etc.

Avoiding Ethical Dilemmas

3. Learn to recognize the most common ethical mistakes. Misappropriation of text or ideas. Deceptive reporting of research results. Breach of confidentiality.

4. Take steps now to avoid conflicts in your research group. Or resolve them quickly with minimal discomfort.

5. Learn from others' mistakes.

Issue #1: Allocation of Credit

Two forms of credit in a paper: Co-authorship Acknowledgments

Who gets listed as a co-author? Student “owes” his supervisor co-authorship

on some journal papers

Ordering of Authors

First and last usually the key positions.

Different disciplines/cultures follow different conventions.

Co-Authorship

Rule of thumb: A co-author should have made direct and

substantial contributions to the work (not necessarily to the writing.)

Co-authors share responsibility for the scientific integrity of the paper.

Penalties may apply!

Co-Authorship (cont.) Generally: authors ordered by the amount of

their contribution. But in the Literature community, author list is

sometimes alphabetical.

Contributions may include: Providing key ideas Doing the implementation Running experiments / collecting data Analyzing the data Writing up the results

Acknowledgments

People who made contributions that don't merit co-authorship may (sometimes must) be acknowledged elsewhere in the paper.

Not as good as co-authorship, since it doesn't go on a vita.

But it's good manners, and costs nothing.

Acknowledge People Who...

Contribute a good idea or coin a useful term

Provide pointers to papers for the bibliography

Help with debugging some tricky code

Help with typesetting or illustrations

Provide significant resources, e.g., loan of equipment, tissue samples, etc.

Also acknowledge your funding agency!

Issue #2: Misappropriating Text

Borrowing “just a sentence or two” without attribution is plagiarism.

But plagiarism is easily avoided: give the citation.

Citation Etiquette

Cite other people's work freely and often:

Avoid antagonizing your reviewers by failing to acknowledge their contributions.

Demonstrate your mastery of the literature.

Make new friends. (Scholars love to be cited.)

Encourage others to cite your work in return.

Citations are good, but stealing citations is not good.

Misappropriation of Ideas

A researcher must not present someone else's ideas as his or her own. Cite your source!

Even if the originator of the idea doesn't care about credit, it is improper to present their idea as one's own.

Issue #3: Responsibilitiesof a Reviewer

1. Do your fair share of reviewing.

2. Promptly return the manuscript if you are not qualified to review it.

3. Judge quality objectively

With due regard to scientific standards, but

With respect for the intellectual independence of the authors.

Reviewer Responsibilities

4. Avoid potential conflicts of interest.

Either decline to review the manuscript, or fully disclose the conflict to the editor.

In some cases, it may be appropriate to submit a signed review, to prevent any accusation of bias.

Reviewer Responsibilities

5. Do not review manuscripts where you have a personal or professional connection to the author.

Your friend / relatives.

Your colleagues.

Reviewer Responsibilities

6. Treat manuscripts as confidential.

Don't turn the manuscript you just reviewed into a course handout, even if it's wonderfully relevant.

Wait until it's published.

Reviewer Responsibilities

7. Provide adequate support for your judgments, including citations.

Wrong way: The author's results must be wrong, since they conflict

with those of Bovik, who invented the field.

Right way: The authors should explain the discrepancies between

their results and the seminal work of Bovik

Responsibilites of a Reviewer

8. Know the literature.

Point out missing citations.

Call the editor's attention to any substantial similarity between this manuscript and one already published or currently submitted to another journal.

Responsibilities of a Reviewer

9. Turn in all reviews promptly.

Someone's tenure case may hang on your decision.

Responsibilities of a Reviewer

10. Do not use the ideas or results in a manuscript except with permission of the author.

Issue #4: Research Fraud

Painting mice with a magic marker to fake the results of a genetic experiment. (True case.)

Fabricating some missing data points in order to complete a study in time for a deadline.

Favorite Excuses forTrimming and Cooking “those outlier points must be

measurement error”

“they would only confuse the reader”

“everybody cleans up their data before publication”

Famous Fabricators

Mendel “cleaned up” his genetics data.

Kepler fabricated data on planetary observations to support his controversial claim that the planets follow elliptical orbits.

Recent Cases

Woo Suk Hwang (South Korea): Faked results to support his claim to

have cloned human stem cells

Eric Poehlman (U. Vermont): Faked data in 15 NIH grant applications

worth $2.9 million over 10 years Sentenced to 366 days in federal

prison.

Issue #5: Failure to Disclose

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is always a good idea.

It's insurance against accusations of misconduct.

Failure to disclose may lead to:

An appearance of impropriety

Jail time

Talking to the Public

In general, scientists should not announce discoveries to the public before they have undergone peer review.

Deliberately avoiding peer review for personal gain may constitute professional misconduct.

Talking to the Public

Technical issues sometimes have to be simplified when explaining research to the public, but:

1)Don't oversell your results.2)Don't allow others (e.g., a reporter, or a company

you're working with) to hype your results to make the story more exciting.

3)Make sure the technical details are available at the time of any public announcements, so the facts can be checked by any scientist who cares to do so.

Etiquette in the Scientific Community Pointing out flaws in competing

approaches is fine. But be respectful of other researchers working in your area.

Etiquette

Praise good behavior in public.

Criticize bad behavior (e.g., failure to cite) in private.

If public criticism is necessary, stick to objective facts. Personal attacks are never appropriate.

Dealing with Problems

Get your advisor's advice.

If you have a problem with your advisor, discuss it with him or her before seeking outside opinions.

If necessary, speak confidentially with some other senior scientist whose opinions you respect.

Dealing with Problems (cont.)

Sometimes misunderstandings or unhappy situations can be cleaned up through mediation by a third party.

Handling Misconduct

Handle allegations of misconduct with as much confidentiality as possible.

Remember that there are two sides to every story.

Quality measurement of Research

Impact Factor

h-index

g-index

The Science of Measuring Research

Careers in research are not scientific; they depend on: luck social connections the ability to impress influential people and

referees the foresight to join the right lab at the right

time the foresight to associate oneself with

prestigious people and prestigious projects

The Science of Measuring Research

Research production: the basis for any measurement of scientific merit

Research production consists of: published articles, and their impact

Early Approaches: the Impact Factor

Garfield (Science, 1972) described the Impact Factor (IF) for journals:Impact factor for Journal X, 2007►A = # citations in all ISI articles during 2007 to

papers published in X during 2005–2006►B = # of articles published in X during 2005–2006►Impact Factor = A/B

The IF is computed from data gathered by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), which publishes the Science Citation Index

Impact Factor Heavily Criticized …

Few articles make the difference: Philip Campbell – Editor-in-Chief of the journal Nature –

concerned about IF’s crudeness (ESEP, 2008):The value of Nature’s impact factor for 2004 was 32.2When he analyzed the citations of individual Nature papers over the relevant period (i.e., citations in 2004 of papers published in 2002 to 2003), he found that 89% of the impact factor was generated by just 25% of the papers!

Impact Factor Heavily Criticized …

Why papers from a two-year period & citations from a single year: John Ewing concerned about IF’s “parameters”

(NOTICES OF THE AMS, 2006):Looking at citations for only two years after

publication may produce faulty resultsIn some fields (e.g., mathematics) citations frequently

follow several years after publicationWhy two years?And why choose citations from journals published in a

single year?Both are somewhat arbitrary choices, without any

obvious justification

Impact Factor Heavily Criticized … Only a limited subset of journals is indexed by ISI

Only uses the articles cited by the ~13,000 “ISI journals”

Some disciplines are especially poorly covered

Biased toward English-language journals ISI has recently added several hundred non-English

journals Is an average; not all articles are equally well-cited

Impact Factor Heavily Criticized … Includes self-citations, that is articles in which the

article cites other papers in the same journal Only includes “citable” articles in the denominator

of the equation, i.e., articles and reviews Editors may skew IF by increasing the number of review

articles, which bring in more citations (increases the numerator)

Or by increasing the number of “news” items (e.g., Science, general medical journals) , which are cited (appear in numerator) but not considered “citable” (and so aren’t in the denominator)

It is expensive to subscribe to the JCR

The Hirsch h-index Jorge Hirsch (PNAS, 2005) defined the h-

index: An author scores h if h of their N papers each

have at least h citations, with the remaining (N– h) papers each having fewer than h citations

Quantifies both the actual scientific productivity and the apparent scientific impact of a scientist

Resists to the power-laws followed by the evaluation metrics based on simple arithmetics

h-index example

• A scientist with 5 articles

• When ranked, have 6,4,4,2,1 citations

A Ferrers graph representation

The h-index is equal to the length ofthe side of the Durfee square

h-index’s shortcomings is bounded by the total number of

publications: hAlbert Einstein=5 does not consider the context of citations:

citations are often made simply to flesh-out an introduction

citations made in a negative context citations made to fraudulent or retracted work

does not account for confounding factors practice of "gratuitous authorship" the favorable citation bias associated with

review articles

h-index’s shortcomings is affected by limitations in citation data

bases is a natural number and thus lacks

discriminatory power does not account for the age of the

articles and the age of citations does not account for the number of

authors of a paper …and many more

The g-index The h-index de-emphasizes singular successful

publications in favor of sustained productivity. But, it may do so too strongly!

• Two scientists may have the same h-index, say, h = 30, but one has 20 papers that have been cited more than 1000 times and the other has none

• g-index (Scientometrics, 2006): the (unique) largest number such that the top g articles received (together) at least g2 citations

Publish or Perish (PoP)A tool for analyzing citations in Google Scholar Based on Google Scholar citations, can analyze (up to 999

entries) by author or journal. For journals POP provides: Average cites/paper Average # of authors / paper h-index: combines an assessment of both quantity (number

of papers) and quality (impact, or citations to these papers) G-index

Most people use PoP to search for author h-indexes (not journal data)

Free software (for academics) ; download at harzing.com/pop.htm

Plagairism

If You…

Created an invention that made millions of dollars, would you want to have it patented so that YOU were the one who received credit and money for your invention?

If You…

Directed a movie that not only made millions of dollars at the box office but also won an Oscar, wouldn’t you want YOUR name in the credits so that YOU would receive the money, fame, and recognition?

If You…

Took weeks (or even years) to write and publish a book, play, poem, or essay, wouldn’t you want YOUR name on it so that you would be recognized for your intelligence and hard work?

If You…

Answered “YES” to those questions, then you understand the need for

citations to avoid PLAGIARISM!

Plagiarism: What is it?

The word “plagiarism” comes from the Latin plagiarus meaning “kidnapper”

Presenting another’s original thoughts or ideas as your own

Using another’s exact words without proper citation

Further: It doesn’t matter whether the theft is

intentional or accidental. Either way, it is plagiarism.

German defense minister accused of plagiarism. Individual resigned position - 01 March 2011.

BBC News Europe

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12504347 (18

(Accessed 18 February

2011)

Real Life Plagiarism Scandals

Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, was forced to step down from the Pulitzer board after she was found to have accidentally used another’s words in one of her books.

Hostetter, Janet. 6 Apr 2006. Associated Press Images. 5 Aug 2008. <http://apimages.ap.org>

Kirpatrick, David D. “Author Goodwin Resigns from Pulitzer Board.” New York Times. (1 June 2002.) 5 Aug. 2008.

<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E7D7143AF932A35755C0A9649C8B63>.

Real Life Plagiarism Scandals

After being accused of rampant plagiarism in her work, tenured professor Madonna G. Constantine was fired from her position at Columbia University.

Bondafeff, Dian. 10 Oct. 2007. Associated Press Images. 5 Aug 2008. <http://apimages.ap.org>.

Santora, Marc. “Columbia Professor in Noose Case Is Fired on Plagiarism Charges.” New York Times. (24 June

2008.) 5 Aug. 2008. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/nyregion/24columbia.html?scp=1&sq=Madonna%20Constantine%20&st=cse>.

Real Life Plagiarism ScandalsAs a reporter for the New York Times, Jayson Blair plagiarized or fabricated in more than 40 stories between 2002 and 2005. He was fired from his job. The top two editors of the newspaper resigned as a result of the scandal.

“Correcting the Record.” New York Times. 11 May 2003. The New York Times. 5 Aug 2008. <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E1DB123FF932A25756C0A9659C8B63>

Image: Szymaszek, Jennifer. 12 May 2004. Associated Press Images. 5 Aug 2008. <http://

apimages.ap.org>

Real Life Plagiarism ScandalsBlair Hornstein was the valedictorian of her high school class and had earned admission to Harvard University. After articles Hornstein wrote for a local newspaper were discovered to have been plagiarized, Harvard University rescinded their acceptance.

Capuzzo, Jill P. “MOORESTOWN JOURNAL; Seeing Crimson.” New York Times. (20 July 2003.) 5 Aug. 2008.

<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E00E6D61E3CF933A15754C0A9659C8B63&scp=4&sq=Blair

%20Hornstein%20&st=cse>.

“Blair Hornstein.” The Gothamist. 14 July 2003. 5 Aug. 2008. <http://gothamist.com/2003/07/14/gothamist.php>.

Real Life Plagiarism Scandals Student’s Novel

Faces Plagiarism ControversyBook by Kaavya Viswanathan ’08 contains similarities to earlier author’s works

Published: Sunday, April 23, 2006The Harward Crimson

CNR Rao, 3 others in plagiarism rowKalyan Ray New Delhi, Feb 20, 2012, DHNS

Eminent scientist and Prime Minister's Scientific Adviser CNR Rao and three other Bangalore-based researchers have found themselves embroiled in an unsavoury “plagiarism” row.

Deccon Herald, February 20, 2012

Two types of plagiarism:

Intentional Copying a friend’s work Buying or borrowing

papers Cutting and pasting

blocks of text from electronic sources without documenting

Media “borrowing”without documentation

Web publishing without permissions of creators

Unintentional Careless paraphrasing Poor documentation Quoting excessively Failure to use your

own “voice”

Unintentional Plagiarism Paraphrasing poorly: changing a few words

without changing the sentence structure of the original, or changing the sentence structure but not the words. 

Quoting poorly:  putting quotation marks around part of a quotation but not around all of it, or putting quotation marks around a passage that is partly paraphrased and partly quoted.

Citing poorly:  omitting an occasional citation or citing inaccurately.

Intentional Plagiarism Passing off as one’s own pre-written papers

from the Internet or other sources. Copying an essay or article from the

Internet, on-line source, or electronic database without quoting or giving credit.

Cutting and pasting from more than one source to create a paper without quoting or giving credit.

Borrowing words or ideas from other students or sources without giving credit.

Paraphrasing Plagiarism

This occurs when the plagiarizer paraphrases or summarizes another's work

without citing the source. Even changing the words a little or using

synonyms but retaining the author's essential thoughts, sentence structure,

and/or style without citing the source is still considered plagiarism.

Unintentional

It occurs when the writer incorrectly quotes and/or incorrectly cites a source they are using.  How is this plagiarism, if the author didn't mean to do it?

Unintentional

If a writer has incorrectly quoted or incorrectly cited a source, it could be misconstrued as dishonesty on the writer's part. The dishonest usage of another's work is most often considered plagiarism. Therefore, the incorrect usage of another's work, whether it's intentional or not, could be taken for "real" plagiarism.

How to Avoid Plagiarism

Cite the source of any idea or words you take from anyone else.

Provide a bibliography to show where the borrowed material originated.

Four good reasons for citing sources in your work:

Citing reliable information gives credibility to your work.

Cheating is unethical behavior.

It is only fair to give credit to the source—otherwise, you are stealing the source’s ideas.

The consequences are severe—plagiarism is not worth the risk.

Is it plagiarism or is it cultural?

‘In some Asian cultures, students are taught to memorize and copy well-respected authors and leaders in their societies to show intelligence and good judgment in writing.’

‘What is defined as plagiarism by American standards is not defined as such by many Asian or European standards, in which… Taking ideas and words from different books and writers to build an answer seems to be an accepted academic practice.’

‘In India, for example, undergraduates are not expected to cite sources and it is only at the graduate level where such activity is expected, but not necessary.’

Strategies to avoid plagiarism

• Practice good research methods

• Know how to quote

• Know how to cite

• Know when something is common knowledge

• Know how to paraphrase

Practice good research methods Be careful about paraphrasing while

taking notes Be sure to keep track of each source you

use

Know how to quote

Mention the name of the quoted person in your text

Put quotation marks around the text you are quoting

Use brackets ([ ]) and ellipses ( … )

Citing Internet Sources

Material on the Internet is not “free.” It still needs to be cited.

Don’t avoid citing Internet sources and articles from electronic databases just because you don’t know how.

Know when to cite

• Always give a citation for specific statistics, percentages, and numbers given in your text.

• You don’t need to cite facts or ideas that are common knowledge.

Is it common knowledge?

Facts that can be found in numerous places and are likely to be known by a lot of people do not need to be cited.

Consider your audience when deciding whether a fact is common knowledge.

Example of common knowledge:

Dr. Rajendra Prasad was first President of India.

Know how to paraphrase

Paraphrasing means putting an idea into your own words.

Don’t just rearrange the sentences or replace a few words.

Be able to summarize the original source without having it in front of you.

Effective paraphrasing

Introduce your source at the point you begin paraphrasing the ideas of the other writer.

Cite your source in parentheses where you finish paraphrasing the source and resume presenting your own ideas.

Legal aspects of plagiarism

Copyright law Trademark and unfair competition laws Fraud

Possible consequences

Having an academic degree rescinded, or professional status revoked

Loss of reputation

In most cases involving a student or professor, the court has

upheld punishment imposed by the college.

“Cyber-cheating” in the digital age

Plagiarism before the Internet era: books, journals, fraternity test files, etc.

In the present day: far easier to cheat, but it’s also growing easier to detect

“Cyber-cheating” in the digital age

Technology has made it easier to track down and identify cases of plagiarism – you won’t get away with it.

TurnItIn.com

Methods of detecting plagiarism

More accurate search engines Full-text journal articles in library

databases Commercial plagiarism-detection

services aimed at teachers As always, the professor may well

recognize the source.

Self-plagiarization

Students Professionals

A Word About Copyright Automatic copyright – all the research and

writing you do is automatically copyrighted the moment it becomes tangible*.

Email is public and copyrighted - the original author owns the copyright on it

Get permission to use or forward email sent to you or information obtained through discussion groups or other online forums including Web sites.

*touchable; material; real

Thank You

Any Questions?