Personalising the dilemma: research ethics in fiction

Learning about research ethics and research integrity is greatly facilitated by case studies, which illuminate, ground and personalise abstract questions. This paper argues that fiction can provide similar learning experiences, incarnating ethical dilemmas through a medium that is highly accessible yet sophisticated in its depictions of how researchers behave. Examples of fictional illustrations are given to illustrate various themes such as animal experimentation, exploitation of the vulnerable, researcher bias and research fraud.

Determinants of Financial Statement Fraud: Research Fraud Diamond Theory (Empirical Study on Manufacturing Company listed on the Stock Exchange)

Aims of research is toassess theprobable of financial statement fraud found on the theory of the fraud diamond. The Fraud diamond describes somecomponents lead a person to commit fraud; opportunity, capability, rationalization and pressure. Researchuses Fraud Score to investigate probable of financial statements fraud. The method use purposive sampling, with criteria of financial statements of manufacturing companies classified in Indonesia Stock Exchange period in 2013-2017. Research was conducted with quantitative methods,the analysis technique used multiple regression analysis and hypothesis testing using coefficient of determination test, F test andt test. The issues ofthe reserach presented thepressure ofvariables which isreplaced by financial targets and financial stability; alsothe opportunity of the variables are replaced by nature of industry are proven to be influential and significant in distinguish potential fraudulent financial statements.

Fraud and Misconduct in Publishing Medical Research

One of the important feature of scientific research is scrutinizing truth. Investigators strive for honesty and integrity in all scientific communications. Candidly reported methods and procedures, data and results, and their publication status should reflect authenticity. Publication of fake data diverts the search from truth. The aim of studying human subjects should be advancing research and scholarship and not just the researcher’s own career. Misconduct in medical research is any intentional deviation from acceptable ethical principles. Intentional misconduct is a serious observation, and misconduct such as falsification and fabrication of data and plagiarism are the most common fraud practices in medical research. Misconduct can occur at any stage of the research process; however, it particularly occurs in the results section of the research as researchers try to avoid negative findings. Data falsification occurs when investigators attempt to alter data to meet their own expectations. Falsification could involve altering data and results on research participants’ record to fit research report. Data fabrication occurs when researchers report data that were completely constructed and never occurred when running the research. Plagiarism is using—either deliberate or inattentive—other researchers’ ideas and words without clearly acknowledging the source of that information. Although fraud and misconduct have serious consequences, they are not uncommon among research publications in scientific journals. Institutions have to develop a mechanism to discover research misconduct and to prevent it. Editors and reviewers are required to introduce some commentaries in the regulations to impose sanctions on those found guilty of research misconduct. Key words: research, fraud, misconduct

Should research misconduct be criminalized?

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.