Plagiarism in the scientific environment: Assessing economic losses, current problems and solutions in countering research falsification

Issue 56, 2024

Nelli Akylbekova, Gulmira Nurlikhina, Azyk Orozonova, Gulnar Dzholdasbayeva, Gulzana Nazarkulova

Received 28.02.2024, Revised 18.05.2024, Accepted 29.06.2024

https://doi.org/10.54919/physics/56.2024.229or9

Abstract

Relevance. The relevance of the study is determined by the importance of developing approaches to assessing the damage caused to the scientific community and society as a whole by manifestations of deviant behaviour at all stages of the scientific process. The problem of science development from the point of view of ambivalence of scientific principles and behaviour of individual representatives of the scientific community is considered.

Purpose. The main objective of the study is to develop a conceptual approach that allows for the assessment of economic losses caused by deviations from constructive behaviour in the process of scientific activity.

Methodology. The set of methods used in the research process is represented by the methods of deduction and induction, analysis, and synthesis, comparative and system analysis, elements of economic and mathematical modelling.

Results. The cases of unfairness in conducting research and their impact on reducing the level of trust in science have been studied. The formation of a conceptual approach to the assessment of economic losses as an important scientific task, the implementation of which is carried out using an economic-mathematical model, is substantiated. The proposed solution will make it possible to unify methodological approaches to the assessment of damage from the manifestation of deviations in science.

Conclusions. The problems are defined, the detection and identification of which is necessary for the development of recommendations aimed at counteracting the manifestation of deviations in science. The scaling of the proposed approach to the assessment of economic losses that are inflicted on society when the principles of intellectual honesty are violated in the process of conducting scientific research will ensure the strengthening of the positions of social, ethical and economic justice, will increase the level of trust in science.

Keywords: ethics; ambivalence; deviant behaviour; implicit zone; economic-mathematical model

Suggested citation

Akylbekova N, Nurlikhina G, Orozonova A, Dzholdasbayeva G, Nazarkulova G. Plagiarism in the scientific environment: Assessing economic losses, current problems and solutions in countering research falsification. Sci Herald Uzhhorod Univ Ser Phys. 2024;(56):2299-2309. DOI: 10.54919/physics/56.2024.229or9

Download article

References

  1. Merton RK. The sociology of science (1942). Chicago: University of Chicago; 1973.
  2. Cotgrove S, Box S. Science Industry and Society. London: Routledge; 2013.
  3. Merton RK, Kaplan N. The Ambivalence of Scientists. Science and Society. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1965.
  4. King C. Unsure theory: Ambivalence as methodology. Arts. 2022;11(4):78.
  5. Marsh R. The ambivalent view of science. London: Routledge; 2021.
  6. Nicholas G, Foote J, Kainz K, Midgley G, Prager K, Zurbriggen C. Towards a heart and soul for co-creative research practice: A systemic approach. Evid Policy. 2019;15(3):353-370.
  7. Bandola-Gill J. Between relevance and excellence? Research impact agenda and the production of policy knowledge. Sci Public Policy. 2019;46(6):895-905.
  8. Tindall I, Fu K, Tremayne K, Curtis G. Can negative emotions increase students’ plagiarism and cheating? Int J Edu Integr. 2021;17:25.
  9. Dierickx K, Nemery B, Yi N. Perceptions of plagiarism by biomedical researchers: An online survey in Europe and China. BMC Med Ethics. 2020;21(1):44.
  10. Grondin C, Cong Y, Keshavarzi N, Geisser M, Kolars J, Hutchinson R. Ethical perspectives of Chinese and United States physicians within a research collaborative. Account Res. 2021;29(5):294-308.
  11. Li D, Cornelis G. Differing perceptions concerning research misconduct between China and Flanders: A qualitative study. Account Res. 2020;28(2):63-94.
  12. Halak B, El-Hajjar M. Design and evaluation of plagiarism prevention and detection techniques in engineering education. High Edu Pedagog. 2019;4(1):197-208.
  13. Tiidenberg K. Research ethics, vulnerability, and trust on the internet. In: J. Hunsinger, M.M. Allen, L. Klastrup (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Internet Research (pp. 569-583). Dordrecht: Springer; 2020.
  14. Case Summary: Jarrett, Stuart G; 2022. https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-jarrett-stuart-g
  15. Case Summary: Kaushal, Deepak; 2022. https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/FRN%202022-16946%20Kaushal.pdf
  16. Case Summary: Jiang, Janina; 2022. https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-jiang-janina
  17. Wellcome Global Monitor 2018; 2018. https://wellcome.org/reports/wellcome-global-monitor/2018
  18. Wellcome Global Monitor 2020: Mental health; 2020. https://wellcome.org/reports/wellcome-global-monitor-mental-health/2020/
  19. Levin V. Plagiarism, its essence and struggle against it. High Edu Russ. 2018;219(1):143-150.
  20. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering (US), Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research. Washington: National Academies Press; 2009.
  21. Sharma OP. Ethics in science. Indian J Microbiol. 2015;55(3):341-344.
  22. Nobel Prize winner Gregg Semenza retracts four papers; 2022. https://retractionwatch.com/2022/09/03/nobel-prize-winner-gregg-semenza-retracts-four-papers/#more-125592
  23. Zuckerman H. Norms and deviant behaviour in science. Sci Technol Hum Values. 1984;9(1):7-13.
  24. Nachman BY. Deviance in science: towards the criminology of science. Br J Criminol. 1986;1:1-27.
  25. Nikolić S, Jajić S, Vila A, Ivanović S. Intellectual dishonesty in science. Acta Med Medianae. 2013;52(2):56-60.
  26. Hashmani T, Jonason P. Antisocial behaviour. In: T. Shackleford, V. Weekes-Shackleford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (pp. 1-6). Cham: Springer; 2017.
  27. Ünal M, Toprak M, Başpınar V. Ethical violations and sanctions in scientific publications: A framework proposal for social sciences and humanities. Amme Idar Derg. 2012;45(3):1-31.
  28. Svirina A, Anand A. Dubious or decisive? Digging deeper into the unchartered path of academic ghostwriting. J Organ Change Manag. 2021;35(1):38-58.
  29. Hofmann B, Helgesson G, Juth N, Holm S. Scientific dishonesty: A survey of doctoral students at the major medical faculties in Sweden and Norway. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015;10(4):380-388.
  30. Niu Y, Shen B, Cui Y, Chen Y, Wang J, Wang L, Kang Y, Zhao X, Si W, Li W, Xiang A, Zhou J, Guo X, Bi Y, Si C, Hu B, Dong G, Wang H, Zhou Z, Li T, Tan T, Pu X, Wang F, Ji S, Zhou Q, Huang X, Ji W, Sha J. Generation of gene-modified cynomolgus monkey via Cas9/RNA-mediated gene targeting in one-cell embryos. Cell. 2014;156(4):836-843.
  31. Raposo V. The first Chinese edited babies: A leap of faith in science. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2019;23(3):197-199.
  32. Higgins W, Rogers W, Ballantyne A, Lipworth W. Against the use and publication of contemporary unethical research: The case of Chinese transplant research. J Med Ethics. 2020;46(10):678-684.
  33. Goldstein C, Peterson A. Is it unethical to publish data from Chinese transplant research? J Med Ethics. 2020;46(10):689-690.
  34. Sade R, Carpenter A, D’Amico T, Drake D, Entwistle J, Ray S. Reply: The boat, the sword, and the opacity of Chinese transplant data. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022;164:127-129.
  35. Holm A, Fedson S, Courtwright A, Olland A, Bryce K, Kanwar M, Sweet S, Egan T, Lavee J. International society for heart and lung transplantation statement on transplant ethics. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2022;41(10):1307-1308.
  36. Bülow W, Godskesen T, Helgesson G, Eriksson S. Why unethical papers should be retracted. J Med Ethics. 2021;47(12):e32-e32.
  37. Caplan A. The ethics of the unmentionable. J Med Ethics. 2020;46(10):687-688.
  38. Kharasch E, Avram M, Bateman B, Clark J, Culley D, Davidson A, Houle T, Jiang Y, Levy J, London M, Sleigh J, Vutskits L. Authorship and publication matters: Credit and credibility. Anesthesiology. 2021;135(1):1-8.
  39. Gelfand MJ. Culture’s constraints: International differences in the strength of social norms. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012;21(6):420-424.
  40. Resnik DB. Research ethics timeline; 2022. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/timeline
  41. Guerrero-Dib JG, Portales L, Heredia-Escorza Y. Impact of academic integrity on workplace ethical behaviour. Int J Edu Integr. 2020;16:2.
  42. Palla I, Singson M. How do researchers perceive research misbehaviour? A case study of Indian researchers. Account Res. 2022;30(8):707-724.
  43. Albayatey A. The impact of plagiarism on the quality of scientific researches “empirical study”. J Econ Adm Sci. 2020;26(118):32-57.
  44. Stommel W, Rijk L. Ethical approval: None sought. How discourse analysts report ethical issues around publicly available online data. Res Ethics. 2021;17(3):275-297.
  45. Salwén H. Research ethical norms, guidance and the internet. Sci Eng Ethics. 2021;27:67.
  46. Shahreki Z, Rakhshani E. Checklist of agromyzid leafminers (Diptera: Agromyzidae) in Sistan region – Iran. Int Arch Appl Sci Technol. 2016;7(2):4-8.
  47. Shahreki Z, Rakhshani E, Sasakawa M. A contribution to the agromyzid leaf miners (Diptera: Agromyzidae) of Iran. Biol Nyssana. 2012;3(1):31-36.
  48. Shahreki Z, Rakhshani E, Gumovsky A. Identification parasitoids of leafminer flies in Sistan region – Iran. Int Arch Appl Sci Technol. 2016;7(2):9-13.
  49. Shimray S. Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19. Account Res. 2022;30(7):393-406.
  50. Diamond AM. The career consequences of a mistaken research project: The case of polywater. Am J Econ Sociol. 2009;68(2):387-412.
Make a Submission

Indexing

info@physics.uz.ua