ArticlePDF Available


  • College of Applied Health Sciences Cuprija

Abstract and Figures

The aim of this article is to obtain answers about the most important questions involving dishonesty in science. If we consider scientific work, we have to mention that various forms of errors need to be divided into two groups: reputable and disreputable errors. The third group, called the “grey zone”, includes “cooking” and “trimming”. When we consider the problem of dishonesty in science we should mention the most important question: who and for what reasons commits plagiarism and other forms of intellectual crookedness? Is it for financial benefits or for advancement? It is difficult to say, but it is necessary to use all available remedies to eradicate all forms of intellectual dishonesty, which is hard, especially in biomedical sciences. However, some reputable journals in this field use some special software packages to detect plagiarism.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review article UDC: 001.891:174
Svetlana Nikolić1, Slađana Jajić2, Ana Vila3, Sunčica Ivanović4
The aim of this article is to obtain answers about the most important questions
involving dishonesty in science. If we consider scientific work, we have to mention that
various forms of errors need to be divided into two groups: reputable and disreputable
errors. The third group, called the “grey zone”, includes “cooking” and “trimming”.
When we consider the problem of dishonesty in science we should mention the most
important question: who and for what reasons commits plagiarism and other forms of
intellectual crookedness? Is it for financial benefits or for advancement? It is difficult to
say, but it is necessary to use all available remedies to eradicate all forms of intellectual
dishonesty, which is hard, especially in biomedical sciences. However, some reputable
journals in this field use some special software packages to detect plagiarism. Acta
Medica Medianae 2013;52(2):56-60.
Key words: plagiarism, intellectual dishonesty, crookedness
Institute for Student Health Care Novi Sad, Serbia1
Prmary Health Care Center Novi Sad, Serbia2
Center for Children and Youth with Developmental Disabilities,
Veternik, Serbia3
College of Health Studies in Ćuprija, Serbia4
Contact:Svetlana Nikolić
Institute for Student Health Care Novi Sad
Dr Sime Miloševića 6
21000 Novi Sad Srbija
The concept of legal regulations and sanctio-
ning their non-appliance is a well-known fact, but
questionable are the so-called "unwritten" rules
and norms, their (dis)respect and consequences
they entail.
Morality and the question of moral standards
have been met practically from the very
beginnings of human civilization, with the
intention of establishing relations in society and
the system of norms and values. The law clearly
regulates sanctions for breaking prescribed norms
of behavior, moral norms, and their non-
compliance is subject to ostracism. A system of
values in one community may not be, and usually
is not, identical to the one that is valid in
another. Norms of behavior regulated in this
manner are categories liable to modification, but
what we definitely need to keep in mind is the
fact that their ultimate goal is the regulation of
relations in the community and establishing the
system of moral norms and principles.
Searching for truth
Scientific research is, of course, an integral
part of every scientific discipline that seeks for
exactness. This raises the question of scientific
problems and criteria that should be met to be
classified in this category. According to the
definitions available in the literature on the
methodology of scientific research, under scientific
issue is considered unexplained, i.e., unresolved
problem, lack of clarification of the (contentious)
issue or the one on which there are conflicting
opinions. (1) The work of scientists directed
towards addressing these problems directly
influences the level of development in science.
Here we come to the key question, which is the
search for the truth. The essence of science
development, and therefore, the scientific work,
is actually discovering the truth previously
unknown or unclear. This tendency in itself is not
controversial, but controversial can be a way of
its search. Finding new truth is almost always
based on previously adopted knowledge and
laws, but its refutation does not mean at the
same time their challenging and outright
rejection, because scientific development has
cumulative and self-correcting character. Any
newly discovered truth is a step higher on the
ladder of scientific development. In an effort to
find an answer to a problem, one should keep in
mind that the absolute truth as a category does
not exist, and therefore tends to draw
conclusions from the greatest possible degree of
probability. The next issue in considering the
concept of truth and the truth itself is the way
i.e. method applied in order to find it. Having
defined the problem and hypothesis, it is verified
through scientific research, and then the results
are analyzed and published. Research design is
affected by a numerous factors, primarily by the
type of problem and methods and tools available,
as well as by what is expected from its solution
i.e. what kind of the benefit it brings to science
and mankind. After deciding on the need to
explore, it is necessary to keep in mind that
there are ethical principles that need to be
Acta Medica Medianae 2013, Vol.52(2) Intellectual dishonesty in science
respected and that is one of the postulates of
good scientific practice. Many articles mentioned
in the context are considering the issue of moral
characteristics of researchers, and what are the
desirable characteristics one should possess. One
of the frequently asked questions is if the
scientists are expected to be moral "puritans",
and whether it is necessary. Of course, these
features are desirable, but they can not be consi-
dered as the only prerequisite for a successful
scientific work. Besides, when it comes to
research in the field of biomedical science we
should bear in mind the fact that this work is
done by people who, by choosing their professions,
had committed themselves to respecting the
moral principles and standards, and therefore the
appearance of any kind of prank and dishonesty
are barely expected. However, there are evidences
that such cases are still encountered in practice,
and the question that arises is what the reasons
for their appearance are. Before discussing the
concept and causes of errors ("honest" and
"dishonest"), I would like to mention that it is
encouraging that the number of such cases is
relatively small compared to the hyperproduction
of published scientific articles, and the scientific
literature is considered to be “pure” in 99.9% of
cases. As for the Biomedical Sciences, the largest
number of cases of intellectual dishonesty has
been recorded in the U.S. (2).
Definition of intellectual dishonesty
In contemporary literature there are numerous
definitions of intellectual dishonesty in science,
and the differences encountered relate mainly to
the details of the stage of scientific procedure in
which they occur. This term usually means fabri-
cation, falsification and plagiarism in proposing,
performing or presenting research (2).
The term fabrication means complete
fabrications of data or concepts, where analysis
and measurement procedures that have never
been performed are shown. (2)
The concept of falsification involves manipu-
lation of the data obtained so that they do not
reflect actual results obtained from the survey (2).
Plagiarism involves the appropriation of
other people's ideas, concepts and texts and
interpreting them as their own (2).
Danish Committee for Intellectual dishonesty
in science in its definition includes "any inten-
tional fraudulent act at any stage of the scientific
process (application-research-publication) and all
extreme cases of negligence questioned to the
professional integrity" (2).
These definitions make it clear as to what is
meant by the intellectual dishonesty, but the
question is what does not belong to this
category. The “gray zone” has been mentioned,
or the area between the common errors and
obvious intellectual dishonesty in which are
classified phenomena not clearly defined and
Mistakes in science
There are numerous articles giving the
classification of errors in science that tend to
make a distinction between accidental, uninten-
tional errors and verified form of intellectual
dishonesty. According to these definitions of
errors in science, they are classified as follows:
- Honest errors (reputable) are classified as
unintentional, accidental and often unavoidable,
and are related to the risk of work (2).
- Dishonest errors (disreputable) represent
deliberate disregard and violation of methodo-
logical rules and ethical norms (2).
Classification of errors in science in this or
a similar way tends to highlight the fundamental,
principled distinction between them. The first
mistakes can be characterized as ordinary (common)
or fair (honest) or errors in good faith.
Deliberate errors, on the contrary, are the
hardest form of compromising the integrity of
science, and are called intellectual dishonesty.
The third group, called "gray zone" includes
cases of violating the principles of good scientific
practice that cannot be characterized as intellectual
dishonesty, but are not completely devoid of it.
These techniques involve "tuning" of the data
(trimming) or “cooking "("scam"). The following
table shows the most common mistakes in science:
Table 1. Errors in science (2)
Unintended „Gray zone“ Intended
Common errors Data manipulation Intellectuall
Designing Data selection
Performance Fabrication
Analysis Undeserved autorship Falsification
Publication Partiality Multiple publications
conflicts of
Self-deception „Salami“ publications
Intellectual dishonesty in science Svetlana Nikolić et al.
Errors in science
The attached table shows the most important
forms of errors in science, presented according to
the severity of the offense (2).
Common mistakes are an integral part of a
research process because they derive from the
research methodology, design, installation irrelevant
hypothesis, inadequate research plan, insufficient
and unrepresentative samples, inadequate techniques,
etc. The most frequent forms of common errors
encountered in practice are related to writing
numbers and their disagreement, typing mistakes
and reference listings, and also honest differences
in performing a research, its interpretation and
conclusion. Bias and self-deception (self-delusion)
are among the harder plain errors.
The "gray zone" includes the area between
the common mistakes and severe cases of
intellectual dishonesty or deviations from good
scientific practice, but this type of offense is very
hard to prove. This category includes: data mani-
pulation and selection, errors in quoting refe-
rences, multiple and "salami" publications, hono-
rary authorship, etc.
- Data manipulation is the removal of unwanted
data, statistical manipulation, concealing original
primary documents and the like.
- Selection of data (suppressing inconvenient
facts) is deliberate selection and presentation of
data in favor of the set of hypotheses.
- Errors in quoting include inadequate quoting
of references and deliberate omitting the
contributions of other authors.
- The concept of multiple publication means
publishing scientific articles twice or more times,
and they can be bilingual (parallel) and repeated
when they appear in the same language (2).
- "Salami" publications are frequently used
term that refers to "fragmentation" of a scientific
work into smaller articles (3). It often occurs as a
result of the pursuit of prestige in the number of
published titles ("Publish or perish"), with a
significant decrease in quality of work and,
therefore, such actions cannot be considered as
real contribution to the development of science.
Basement / deception
The worst forms of intellectual dishonesty,
which can occur in all phases of scientific
research, are violation of the science fundamentals,
and are called basements or deceptions like other
cases of severe deviations from the principles of
good scientific practice. Fabrication, falsification
and plagiarism which were discussed earlier in
the text are considered to be the most extreme
forms of intellectual dishonesty (2).
Causes of intellectual dishonesty
When discussing the problem of intellectual
dishonesty, the issue of their causes is one of the
bases and is certainly the most important
segment in an effort to solve this problem, or to
"shed light". Literature available lists some probable
- Personal motives, where priority of findings is
mentioned as the most important one, which
may lead an author to early publication of
unverified results and therefore to breaching the
principles of good scientific practice;
- Syndrome of "publish or perish" is a conse-
quence of "pressure" on researchers to publish
articles as many as possible. This phenomenon is
particularly prevalent in countries where scien-
tometry is at low level of development;
- Aversion to negative results may also be a
cause for serious violation of ethical principles in
scientific practice. Numerous researchers consider
refutation of hypothesis as failure, forgetting the
fact that every idea to solve the problem, whether
it is confirmed or not, represents a significant
contribution to science and its development.
- Providing the necessary financial resources for
research can also be a reason for the occurrence
of these forms of intellectual dishonesty (3).
Consequences of intellectual dishonesty
According to the above, quite rightfully,
arises the question of importance and influence
of intellectual dishonesty on the development of
science. Firstly, intellectual dishonesty is incompa-
tible with science (2). Secondly, although we
could assume the contrary, a large number of
fabricated scientific titles have had no significant
effect on the flow of scientific development and
their effects were short-lived. Since science
strives to discover the truth and nothing but the
truth, fraud and deception are revealed sooner or
later and usually hard offenses are detected first.
Even in cases where scientific articles that contain
intellectual dishonesty demonstrate a high impact
factor, often it is the result of self-quotation or
quoting close contributors. What is the conclusion?
It is that the society must respond to the resolute
manner; inter alia, the legal regulation of san-
ctioning these offenses. It should be noted that
detecting plagiarism and other forms of intellectual
dishonesty in biomedical sciences is very difficult
and require professionally trained teams and the
most sophisticated high technology (4).
Examples of bad acting
Literature available provides information
about the most famous cases of fraud and
deception in science, and here are some of them:
- McBride affair - young gynecologist who
had first observed teratogenic effects of Thali-
domide published an article about this subject
despite manufacturer’s opposing. Although the
discovery brought considerable fame in the
scientific community, it was not the case with the
financial resources necessary for opening the
Institute. Prestigious journals to which McBride
had sent the article refused to publish it with the
Acta Medica Medianae 2013, Vol.52(2) Intellectual dishonesty in science
explanation that the author did not use a control
group and due to the lack of histopathological
findings. To overcome this problem, McBride resorted
to fabrication of data, which was revealed by his
young co-workers. A court proceeding was
started against Mc Bride, which lasted for many
years (2).
- John Dárselo affair is one of the most
famous scandals that have rocked the scientific
community. He was young and successful cardio-
logist who in a three-year period (1978 to 1981),
with 47 co-authors, produced 109 publications.
His colleagues discovered fabricated data in one
of them and official investigations discovered
more in other publications (2).
- V. Soman affair - in 1979 V. Soman
investigated the function of insulin at Dr. P.
Feliga’s who had turned down a manuscript he
had reviewed. But he showed it to Soman who
used that work, plagiarized some parts of it and,
inventing new data, submitted new manuscript
with Felig as a co-author. The manuscript was
sent for review to the author of plagiarized work,
who informed Yale University, where Soman
worked. The process was long-lasting, but in the
end the charges against Soman were proven (2).
Considering the issue of intellectual dis-
honesty in all its forms, it is necessary to bear in
mind that it is not the appearance of individual
cases, but the phenomenon which, particularly in
the recent years, has been assuming massive
proportions. A research conducted in Nigeria
provides data that as many as 42% of
researchers had committed forgery offense, while
in the case of plagiarism that percentage was
9.2% (5). On the other hand, our experiences
suggest that even a short course on ethics in
scientific research contributes significantly to the
development of both medical students and young
researchers’ awareness of the offense seriousness
such as forgery and plagiarism (6,7). The fact
that it is a phenomenon that assumes massive
proportions is supported by the results of a study
showing that among 2.047 articles in the field of
biomedical sciences indexed in Pub Med, only
21.3% of corrections can be attributed to
unintentional errors, while 67.4% of these were
classified as a form of misconduct, including
fraud in science (43.4%), duplicate publication
(14.2%), and plagiarism in 9.9% of cases (8).
Analysis of MEDLINE database for the period
1966 - 2008 also provides some interesting data.
Out of 213 withdrawn publications, 41.8% were
cases of plagiarism, and in 52.1% it was the
phenomenon of fabrication and falsification. (9)
There is information that the occurrence of
plagiarism and counterfeiting is not unknown to
medical students either, and it is explained by
easy access to electronic databases 10). Analyzing
the displayed data raises the question of how to
eradicate, or at least reduce to a lesser extent,
these now really common occurrences that
represent violation of ethical principles in science.
It is encouraging that implementing sophisticated
technology to detect plagiarism has given
satisfactory results (11). One of the practical
examples is the Croatian Medical Journal, which
in 2009 started using a software to detect
plagiarism (eTBlast and CrossCheck) and manual
control of manuscripts marked as a possible
plagiarism (more than 10% of manuscripts). In
this way, a significant advance in the detection of
plagiarism has been achieved (12). Another issue
that should be considered is how to sanction
proven cases of plagiarism and other forms of
intellectual dishonesty.
One of the ways would be withdrawal of
already published articles (retraction) which are
proven to be whole or partial forgeries, so the
author would be denied the rights which he would
otherwise have and articles like these should not
be included in the author’s bibliography. Unfortu-
nately, in our country, it has not been done
properly and these articles continue to be cited,
for which authors receive undeserved benefits
(13). The cases of forgery and plagiarism were
proven not only in professional journals, but also
in dissertations, due to which the University of
Belgrade has a practice that dissertation have to
be submitted in electronic form only, and then
they pass a rigorous control of several months in
order to establish any form of intellectual dis-
honesty, plagiarism and forgery. The same source
states proven cases of fraud in the scientific
community, as well as the possibilities of judicial
and academic sanctions, such as rejection of
these theses.
The problem of intellectual dishonesty in
science, undoubtedly, has an important place in
the scientific community, and even though it is
not considered frequent, it deserves full attention.
The examples given to illustrate the worst forms
of fraud and deceit in science show that there is
no clear boundary between good and bad, even
in science. These cases prompted the scientific
community to raise the issue of the scientific
practice code, its formulation as a set of rules of
conduct in all aspects of scientific activity.
Codified rules of ethical action in science are
called Good Scientific Practice (GSP) (2). The
establishment of such a set of rules was initially
met by reluctance of wider circles of the scientific
community believing that the intellectual
dishonesty in science is rare, and that too strict
codes of conduct in scientific work would have
negative impact on creativity, which is its driving
force. However, after a period of time-consuming
discussions even the opponents of these regu-
lations accepted them as the only way to fight
against fraud and deceit in science and sanction
Intellectual dishonesty in science Svetlana Nikolić et al.
60 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Licence.
1. Ristanović D. Dačić M. Osnovi metodologije naučno
istraživačkog rada u medicini. Velarta, Beograd 2006.
2. Vučković-Dekić Lj. Milenković P. Šobić V. Etika
naučnoistraživačkog rada u biomedicini. Srpsko
lekarsko društvo: Akademija medicinskih nauka:
Medicinski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu; 2002.
3. Savić J. Kako napisati, objaviti i vrednovati naučno delo
u biomedicini. Kultura:Beograd; 1996. [PubMedCentr]
4. Janković S, Dobrić S, Marković M, Andrić-Krivokuća
S, Gogić A. Plagiarism detection: How we do that.
Vojnosanitetski pregled 2012; 69(9): 743-6.
5. Okonta P, Rosouw T. Prevalence of scientific
nisconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria.
Dev World Bioeth 2012 [Epub ahead of print]
6. Brkić S, Bogdanović G, Vučković-Dekić Lj, Gavrilović
D, Kezić I. Science ethics education: effects of a
short lecture on plagiarism on the knowledge of
young medical researchers. J Buon 2012; 17(3):
570-4. [PubMed]
7. Vučković-Dekić L, Gavrilović D, Kezić I, Bogdanović
G, Brkić S. Science ethics education part II:
changes in attitude toward scientific fraud among
medical researchers after a short course in science
ethics. J Buon 2012; 17(2): 391-5. [PubMed]
8. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct
accounts for the majority of retracted scientific
publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109(42):
17028-33. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMedCentr]
9. Stretton S, Bramich NJ, Keys JR, Monk JA, Ely JA,
Haley C et al. Publication misconduct and plagiarism
retractions: a systematic, retrospective study. Curr
Med Res Opin 2012; 28(10): 1575-83. [CrossRef]
10. Annane D, Annane F. Plagiarism in medical schools,
and its prevention. Presse Med 2012;41 (9 Pt 1):
821-6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Brinkman B. An Analysis of Student Privacy Rights
in the Use of Plagiarism Detection Systems. Sci Eng
Ethics 2012. [Epub ahead of print] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. K.Baždarić. Plagiarism detection – quality management
tool for all scientific journals. Croat Med J 2012; 53(1):
1–3. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMedCentr]
13. Vučković-Dekić Ljiljana. Postupak povlačenja (poništa
vanja) objavljenog naučno rada. Acta Rheumato
logica Belgradensia 2002; 32(2): 149-53.
Svetlana Nikolić, Slađana Jajić, Ana Vila, Sunčica Ivanović
Ekspanzivni razvoj nauke dovodi do brojnih etičkih dilema i otvara vrlo delikatna
pitanja, koja naročito poslednjih decenija postaju vrlo aktuelna. Spomenute moralne
norme, odnosno etički principi, kao univerzalnija kategorija, regulišu i ovaj segment ljudske
delatnosti, imajući u vidu prvenstveno dobrobit čovečanstva. Da je istina drugačija, svedoče
brojni dokazi. U nastojanju da se postigne što veći stepen lične afirmacije, napredovanja,
pa i finansijske koristi, vrlo često se krše osnovna moralna načela i principi u naučno-
istraživačkom radu.Upravo iz spomenutih razloga, u ovom radu će biti razmatran problem
definisanja pojma intelektualnog nepoštenja i uzroka i dilema koji ova pitanja uvek prate.
Acta Medica Medianae 2013;52(2):56-60.
Ključne reči: nauka, moralne norme, intelektualno nepoštenje
... Errors in science are classified as follows: honest mistakes (reputable), which are the definitions of unintentional, accidental, and very often inevitable, but are related to the risk of work and unfair errors (disreputable) constitute willful disregard and violation of the methodological rules and ethical norms. The third group, called "gray zone" includes cases of violating of principles of good scientific practice that cannot be characterized as intellectual dishonesty, but are not completely devoid of it and these techniques involve "tuning" of the data (trimming) or "cooking "("scam") [3]. Fang et al. did a detailed review on over 2000 retracted articles indexed by PubMed which revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error, while the rest (67.4%) of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%) [4,5]. ...
... The former political star and one of the most popular German politicians Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, a former minister of defense and a possible candidate for the Christian Democrats for Chancellor instead of A. Merkel, resigned when it was found that nearly 3/4 of his doctorate was copied without citing sources. John Dárselo was young and successful cardiologist who in a three-year period (1978 to 1981), with 47 co-authors, produced 109 publications and his colleagues discovered fabricated data in one of them and official investigations discovered more in other publications [3]. ...
Full-text available
The problem of plagiarism represents one of the burning issues of the modern scientific world. Detection of plagiarism is a problem that the Editorial Board encounters in their daily work. Software solutions represent a good solution for the detection of plagiarism. The problem of plagiarism will become most discussed topic of the modern scientific world, especially due to the development of standard measures, which rank the work of one author. Investment in education, education of young research personnel about the importance of scientific research, with paying particular attention on ethical behavior, becomes an imperative of academic staff. Editors have to invest additional effort in the development of the base of reviewers team as well as in their proper guidance, because after all, despite the software solutions, they are the best weapon to fight plagiarism. Peer review process should be a key of successful operation of each journal. KEYWORDS: plagiarism; plagiarism detection; software solutions
Full-text available
Plagiarism is the most common form of scientific fraud. It is agreed that the best preventive measure is education of young scientists on basic principles of responsible conduct of research and writing. The purpose of this article was to contribute to the students' knowledge and adoption of the rules of scientific writing. A 45 min lecture was delivered to 98 attendees during 3 courses on science ethics. Before and after the course the attendees fulfilled an especially designed questionnaire with 13 questions, specifically related to the definition and various types of plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Although considering themselves as insufficiently educated in science ethics, the majority of the attendees responded correctly to almost all questions even before the course, with percentages of correct responses to the specific question varying from 45.9-85.7%. After completion of the course, these percentages were significantly (p<0.01) higher, ranging from 66.3-98.8%. The percentage of improvement of the knowledge about plagiarism ranged from 9.18- 42.86%. The percentage of impairment ranged from 1.02- 16.33%, the latter being related to the question on correct citing unpublished materials of other people; only for this question the percentage of impairment (16.33%) was greater than the percentage of improvement (11.22%). Even a short lecture focused on plagiarism contributed to the students' awareness that there are many forms of plagiarism, and that plagiarism is a serious violation of science ethics. This result confirms the largely accepted opinion that education is the best means in preventing plagiarism.
Full-text available
A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
Full-text available
To determine the impact of the short science ethics courses on the knowledge of basic principles of responsible conduct of research (RCR), and on the attitude toward scientific fraud among young biomedical researchers. A total of 361 attendees of the course on science ethics answered a specially designed anonymous multiple- choice questionnaire before and after a one-day course in science ethics. The educational course consisted of 10 lectures: 1) Good scientific practice - basic principles; 2) Publication ethics; 3) Scientific fraud - fabrication, falsification, plagiarism; 4) Conflict of interests; 5) Underpublishing; 6) Mentorship; 7) Authorship; 8) Coauthorship; 9) False authorship; 10) Good scientific practice - ethical codex of science. In comparison to their answers before the course, a significantly higher (p<0.001) number of students qualified their knowledge of science ethics as sufficient after the course was completed. That the wrongdoers deserve severe punishment for all types of scientific fraud, including false authorship, thought significantly (p<0.001) more attendees than before the course, while notably fewer attendees (p<0.001) would give or accept undeserved authorship Even a short course in science ethics had a great impact on the attendees, enlarging their knowledge of responsible conduct of research and changing their previous, somewhat opportunistic, behavior regarding the reluctance to react publicly and punish the wrongdoers.
Full-text available
Plagiarism detection software has considerably affected the quality of scientific publishing. No longer is plagiarism detection done by chance or is the sole responsibility of the reviewer and reader (1). The Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) appointed Research Integrity Editor in 2001, which paved the way for the introduction of computer detection of plagiarism (2,3).
Objectives:Jump to sectionObjectives:Design:Data source:Data selection:Results:Conclusions:IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionTransparencyTo investigate whether plagiarism is more prevalent in publications retracted from the medical literature when first authors are affiliated with lower-income countries versus higher-income countries. Secondary objectives included investigating other factors associated with plagiarism (e.g., national language of the first author’s country affiliation, publication type, journal ranking).Design:Jump to sectionObjectives:Design:Data source:Data selection:Results:Conclusions:IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionTransparencySystematic, controlled, retrospective, bibliometric study.Data source:Jump to sectionObjectives:Design:Data source:Data selection:Results:Conclusions:IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionTransparencyRetracted publications dataset in MEDLINE (search filters: English, human, January 1966–February 2008).Data selection:Jump to sectionObjectives:Design:Data source:Data selection:Results:Conclusions:IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionTransparencyRetracted misconduct publications were classified according to the first author’s country affiliation, country income level, and country national language, publication type, and ranking of the publishing journal. Standardised definitions and data collection tools were used; data were analysed (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence limits [CL], chi-squared tests) by an independent academic statistician.Results:Jump to sectionObjectives:Design:Data source:Data selection:Results:Conclusions:IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionTransparencyOf the 213 retracted misconduct publications, 41.8% (89/213) were retracted for plagiarism, 52.1% (111/213) for falsification/fabrication, 2.3% (5/213) for author disputes, 2.3% (5/213) for ethical issues, and 1.4% (3/213) for unknown reasons. The OR (95% CL) of plagiarism retractions (other misconduct retractions as reference) were higher (P < 0.001) for first authors affiliated with lower-income versus higher-income countries (15.4 [4.5, 52.9]) and with non-English versus English national language countries (3.2 [1.8, 5.7]), for non-original research versus original research publications (8.4 [3.3, 21.3]), for case reports and series versus other original research types (4.2 [1.4, 13.0]), and for publications in low-ranked versus high-ranked journals (4.9 [2.4, 9.9]). Up until 2012, there were significantly (P < 0.007) fewer ‘serial offenders’ (first authors with >1 retraction) with publications retracted for plagiarism (11.5%, 9/78) than other types of misconduct (28.9%, 24/83).Conclusions:Jump to sectionObjectives:Design:Data source:Data selection:Results:Conclusions:IntroductionMethods ResultsDiscussionConclusion TransparencyThis is the first study to demonstrate that publications retracted for plagiarism are significantly associated with first authors affiliated with lower-income countries. These findings have implications for developing appropriate evidence-based strategies and allocation of resources to help mitigate plagiarism misconduct.
The plagiarism has become very common in universities and medical school. Undoubtedly, the easy access to a huge amount of electronic documents is one explanation for the increasing prevalence of plagiarism among students. While most of universities and medical school have clear statements and rules about plagiarism, available tools for the detection of plagiarism remain inefficient and dedicate training program for students and teachers too scarce. As lack of time is one reason for students to choose plagiarism, it should be one main target for educational programs. Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.
Plagiarism detection services are a powerful tool to help encourage academic integrity. Adoption of these services has proven to be controversial due to ethical concerns about students' rights. Central to these concerns is the fact that most such systems make permanent archives of student work to be re-used in plagiarism detection. This computerization and automation of plagiarism detection is changing the relationships of trust and responsibility between students, educators, educational institutions, and private corporations. Educators must respect student privacy rights when implementing such systems. Student work is personal information, not the property of the educator or institution. The student has the right to be fully informed about how plagiarism detection works, and the fact that their work will be permanently archived as a result. Furthermore, plagiarism detection should not be used if the permanent archiving of a student's work may expose him or her to future harm.
Osnovi metodologije naučno istraživačkog rada u medicini
  • D Ristanović
  • M Dačić
Ristanović D. Dačić M. Osnovi metodologije naučno istraživačkog rada u medicini. Velarta, Beograd 2006.
Etika naučnoistraživačkog rada u biomedicini. Srpsko lekarsko društvo: Akademija medicinskih nauka
  • Vučković-Dekić Lj
  • P Milenković
  • V Šobić
Vučković-Dekić Lj. Milenković P. Šobić V. Etika naučnoistraživačkog rada u biomedicini. Srpsko lekarsko društvo: Akademija medicinskih nauka: Medicinski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu; 2002.