scholarly journals Should research misconduct be criminalized?

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Dal-Ré ◽  
Lex M Bouter ◽  
Pim Cuijpers ◽  
Christian Gluud ◽  
Søren Holm
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Critical Issue ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Serious Crime ◽  
Research Fraud ◽  
New Research

For more than 25 years, research misconduct (research fraud) is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP)—although other research misbehaviors have been also added in codes of conduct and legislations. A critical issue in deciding whether research misconduct should be subject to criminal law is its definition, because not all behaviors labeled as research misconduct qualifies as serious crime. But assuming that all FFP is fraud and all non-FFP not is far from obvious. In addition, new research misbehaviors have recently been described, such as prolific authorship, and fake peer review, or boosted such as duplication of images. The scientific community has been largely successful in keeping criminal law away from the cases of research misconduct. Alleged cases of research misconduct are usually looked into by committees of scientists usually from the same institution or university of the suspected offender in a process that often lacks transparency. Few countries have or plan to introduce independent bodies to address research misconduct; so for the coming years, most universities and research institutions will continue handling alleged research misconduct cases with their own procedures. A global operationalization of research misconduct with clear boundaries and clear criteria would be helpful. There is room for improvement in reaching global clarity on what research misconduct is, how allegations should be handled, and which sanctions are appropriate.

scholarly journals Research Misconduct in Business and Management Studies: Causes, Consequences, and Possible Remedies

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis Tourish ◽  
Russell Craig
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Recommendations For Action ◽  
Research Fraud ◽  
Depth Interviews ◽  
Business And Management

This article analyses 131 articles that have been retracted from peer-reviewed journals in business and management studies. We also draw from six in-depth interviews: three with journal editors involved in retractions, two with coauthors of papers retracted because a fellow author committed research fraud, and one with a former academic found guilty of research fraud. Our aim is to promote debate about the causes and consequences of research misconduct and to suggest possible remedies. Drawing on corruption theory, we suggest that a range of institutional, environmental, and behavioral factors interacts to provide incentives that sustain research misconduct. We explore the research practices that have prompted retractions. We contend that some widely used, but questionable research practices, should be challenged so as to promote stronger commitment to research integrity and to deter misconduct. To this end, we propose eleven recommendations for action by authors, editors, publishers, and the broader scientific community.

Judicial geography as a legal science and academic discipline

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 122-137
Author(s):  
Almaz F. Abdulvaliev
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Climatic Factors ◽  
Academic Discipline ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Mapping Method ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Theoretical Development ◽  
New Research

This article presents the conceptual foundations for the formation of a new research field “Judicial Geography”, including the prerequisites for its creation, academic, and theoretical development, both in Russia and abroad. The purpose of the study is to study the possibility of applying geographical methods and means in criminal law, criminal procedure, and in judicial activity in general via the academic direction “Judicial Geography”. The author describes in detail the main elements of judicial geography and its role and significance for such legal sciences, as criminal law, criminal procedure, criminalistics, and criminology among others. The employed research methods allow showing the main vectors of the development of judicial geography, taking into account the previous achievements of Russian and worldwide academics. The author indicates the role and place of judicial geography in the system of legal sciences. This study suggests a concept of using scientific geographical methods in the study of various legal phenomena of a criminal and criminal-procedural nature when considering the idea of building judicial bodies and judicial instances, taking into account geographical and climatic factors. In this regard, the author advises to introduce the special course “Judicial Geography”, which would allow law students to study the specifics of the activities of the judiciary and preliminary investigation authorities from a geographical point of view, as well as to use various geographical methods, including the mapping method, in educational and practical activities. The author concludes that forensic geography may become a new milestone for subsequent scientific research in geography and jurisprudence.

scholarly journals Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Wager ◽  
◽  
Sabine Kleinert
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
List Type ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Published Research

Abstract Background Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic. Methods These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication. Results The main recommendations are that research institutions should: develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers. Conclusions Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases.

scholarly journals Unethical practices within medical research and publication – An exploratory study

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S. D. Sivasubramaniam ◽  
M. Cosentino ◽  
L. Ribeiro ◽  
F. Marino
Keyword(s):  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Unethical Practices ◽  
Institutional Expectations ◽  
Community Impacts ◽  
Publishing Ethics ◽  
Research Councils ◽  
Negative Controls

AbstractThe data produced by the scientific community impacts on academia, clinicians, and the general public; therefore, the scientific community and other regulatory bodies have been focussing on ethical codes of conduct. Despite the measures taken by several research councils, unethical research, publishing and/or reviewing behaviours still take place. This exploratory study considers some of the current unethical practices and the reasons behind them and explores the ways to discourage these within research and other professional disciplinary bodies. These interviews/discussions with PhD students, technicians, and academics/principal investigators (PIs) (N=110) were conducted mostly in European higher education institutions including UK, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Czech Republic and Netherlands.Through collegiate discussions, sharing experiences and by examining previously published/reported information, authors have identified several less reported behaviours. Some of these practices are mainly influenced either by the undue institutional expectations of research esteem or by changes in the journal review process. These malpractices can be divided in two categories relating to (a) methodological malpractices including data management, and (b) those that contravene publishing ethics. The former is mostly related to “committed bias”, by which the author selectively uses the data to suit their own hypothesis, methodological malpractice relates to selection of out-dated protocols that are not suited to the intended work. Although these are usually unintentional, incidences of intentional manipulations have been reported to authors of this study. For example, carrying out investigations without positive (or negative) controls; but including these from a previous study. Other methodological malpractices include unfair repetitions to gain statistical significance, or retrospective ethical approvals. In contrast, the publication related malpractices such as authorship malpractices, ethical clearance irregularities have also been reported. The findings also suggest a globalised approach with clear punitive measures for offenders is needed to tackle this problem.

scholarly journals Torture without physical pain: Inside cell 24 of the special wing for political prisoners-Evin prison (Iran)

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hasti Irani
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Political Prisoners ◽  
Physical Pain ◽  
Islamic Revolution ◽  
Cultural Traditions ◽  
Serious Crime ◽  
Christian Family

I come from Iran, an immense country of more than 77 million inhabitants, the cradle of Persian civilization, and one of the richest and most ancient cultural traditions of humankind, with deep values of respect and tolerance. 38 years ago there was an Islamic revolution that turned Iran into a country that has Islam as an official religion and in which laws must conform to Sharia or Islamic law. I belong to the Christian minority, officially recognised in the Iranian constitution, but only for those born in an ethnically Christian family. People who, like me, were born into an Islamic family and converted to Christianity, are considered apostates and guilty of a serious crime under Sharia. In the last year alone about 200 people who have been accused of apostasy have been imprisoned and many have been tortured. That was the reason I was detained. We Christians are no threat to the national security of Iran. We are not going against the State. But we are treated as such. We, although citizens of Iran, are under Criminal Law, the Enemy.

scholarly journals Peer Review in Law Journals

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jadranka Stojanovski ◽  
Elías Sanz-Casado ◽  
Tommaso Agnoloni ◽  
Ginevra Peruginelli
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Traditional Approach ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Chi Square

The field of law has retained its distinctiveness regarding peer review to this day, and reviews are often conducted without following standardized rules and principles. External and independent evaluation of submissions has recently become adopted by European law journals, and peer review procedures are still poorly defined, investigated, and attuned to the legal science publishing landscape. The aim of our study was to gain a better insight into current editorial policies on peer review in law journals by exploring editorial documents (instructions, guidelines, policies) issued by 119 Croatian, Italian, and Spanish law journals. We relied on automatic content analysis of 135 publicly available documents collected from the journal websites to analyze the basic features of the peer review processes, manuscript evaluation criteria, and related ethical issues using WordStat8. Differences in covered topics between the countries were compared using the chi-square test. Our findings reveal that most law journals have adopted a traditional approach, in which the editorial board manages mostly anonymized peer review (104, 77%) engaging independent/external reviewers (65, 48%). Submissions are evaluated according to their originality and relevance (113, 84%), quality of writing and presentation (94, 70%), comprehensiveness of literature references (93, 69%), and adequacy of methods (57, 42%). The main ethical issues related to peer review addressed by these journals are reviewer’s competing interests (42, 31%), plagiarism (35, 26%), and biases (30, 22%). We observed statistically significant differences between countries in mentioning key concepts such as “Peer review ethics”, “Reviewer”, “Transparency of identities”, “Publication type”, and “Research misconduct”. Spanish journals favor reviewers’ “Independence” and “Competence” and “Anonymized” peer review process. Also, some manuscript types popular in one country are rarely mentioned in other countries. Even though peer review is equally conventional in all three countries, high transparency in Croatian law journals, respect for research integrity in Spanish ones, and diversity and inclusion in Italian are promising indicators of future development.

scholarly journals Weißmüller & DeWaele - Would you bribe your Lecturer?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina Sabrina Weißmüller ◽  
Lode De Waele
Keyword(s):  
University Students ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Critical Issue ◽  
Influence Tactics ◽  
The Public ◽  
Awareness Campaigns ◽  
Weak Factor ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Research Gap ◽  
Micro Level

Bribery is a complex and critical issue in higher education (HE), causing severe economic and societal harm. Traditionally, most scholarship on HE corruption has focused on institutional factors in developing countries and insights into the psychological and motivational factors that drive HE bribery on the micro-level mechanisms are virtually non-existent. To close this research gap, this study investigates the connection between study-related burnout and university students’ willingness to offer bribes to their lecturers to pass important exams. Conducting a vignette-based quasi-experimental replication study with 624 university students in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands we find that university students in three countries differentiate sharply between different shades of bribery and that a majority accept using emotional influence tactics to pass (failed) exams. In contrast, offering a helping hand or money (i.e., darker shades of bribery) to their lecturer was less acceptable. Study-related burnout is associated with a higher likelihood of engaging in these darker shades of bribery and students’ commitment to the public interest is but a weak factor in preventing unethical behavior. In summary, this study provides solid empirical evidence that university students are likely to use emotional influence tactics violating both the ethical codes of conduct and the formalized bureaucratic procedures of HE examination, particularly if they suffer from study-related burnout. However, the accelerating effect of burnout on bribery is conditional in that it only holds for darker shades of bribery. HE institutions may benefit from implementing the four-eye principle and from launching awareness campaigns that enable lecturers to better recognize these tactics and engage students in creating a transparent environment for testing, grading, and collaboration that is resistant to bribery.

scholarly journals Reforming Science Publishing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled Moustafa
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Publishing Industry ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
The Past ◽  
Open Access Journals

Over the past few years, different changes have been introduced into the science publishing industry. However, important reforms are still required at both the content and form levels. First, the peer review process needs to be open, fair and transparent. Second, author-paid fees in open access journals need to either be removed or reconsidered toward more affordability. Third, the categorization of papers should include all types of scientific contributions that can be of higher interest to the scientific community than many mere quantitative and observable measures, or simply removed from publications. Forth, word counts and reference numbers in online open access journal should be nuanced or replaced by recommended ranges rather than to be a proxy of acceptance or rejection. Finally, all the coauthors of a manuscript should be considered corresponding authors and responsible for their mutual manuscript rather than only one or two.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document