Недобросовестные заимствования в диссертационных работах

IF 0.5 Q4 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Obrazovanie i Nauka-Education and Science Pub Date : 2018-04-04 DOI:10.17853/1994-5639-2018-3-160-181
M. S. Gelfand
{"title":"Недобросовестные заимствования в диссертационных работах","authors":"M. S. Gelfand","doi":"10.17853/1994-5639-2018-3-160-181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. Originality and independence is the first, absolute and general requirement to the content of dissertations, regardless of an academic degree and research direction. At the same time, recently a considerable fraction of different types of plagiarism have been found out in the Russian dissertation works. The aim is an analysis of the most frequent plagiarism in candidate and doctoral dissertations. Results. We consider the established practices in the evaluation of independence in academic works. Unethical use of someone else’s work and materials by the authors of dissertations include, in particular, copying from official documents and abstracts without acknowledgement the source and with no citation; replication of existing reviews and chapters from already defended dissertations; falsification by refreshing of outdated data with substituted dates, and or wordfor-word copy-pasting with substitution of the research object. The latter type of the plagiarism involving fraud in experimental and statistical data constitutes a special peril for the science and for the society in general. The primary principle for assessment of independence in dissertations has to be proper citing and referencing that should allow a reader to distinguish the author’s contribution from someone else’s text. Undocumented verbatim quotations in dissertations are inadmissible, whether the author claims scientific novelty or not. At that, it does not matter whether well-known or unique data are provided, and whether the source is protected by a copyright. Practical significance. The qualitative analysis of the factual material, based on the author’s observations, can serve as a starting point for the subsequent quantitative analysis of plagiarism in scientific texts.","PeriodicalId":44143,"journal":{"name":"Obrazovanie i Nauka-Education and Science","volume":"20 1","pages":"160-181"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obrazovanie i Nauka-Education and Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2018-3-160-181","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Introduction. Originality and independence is the first, absolute and general requirement to the content of dissertations, regardless of an academic degree and research direction. At the same time, recently a considerable fraction of different types of plagiarism have been found out in the Russian dissertation works. The aim is an analysis of the most frequent plagiarism in candidate and doctoral dissertations. Results. We consider the established practices in the evaluation of independence in academic works. Unethical use of someone else’s work and materials by the authors of dissertations include, in particular, copying from official documents and abstracts without acknowledgement the source and with no citation; replication of existing reviews and chapters from already defended dissertations; falsification by refreshing of outdated data with substituted dates, and or wordfor-word copy-pasting with substitution of the research object. The latter type of the plagiarism involving fraud in experimental and statistical data constitutes a special peril for the science and for the society in general. The primary principle for assessment of independence in dissertations has to be proper citing and referencing that should allow a reader to distinguish the author’s contribution from someone else’s text. Undocumented verbatim quotations in dissertations are inadmissible, whether the author claims scientific novelty or not. At that, it does not matter whether well-known or unique data are provided, and whether the source is protected by a copyright. Practical significance. The qualitative analysis of the factual material, based on the author’s observations, can serve as a starting point for the subsequent quantitative analysis of plagiarism in scientific texts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
介绍。无论学位和研究方向如何,独创性和独立性是对论文内容的首要、绝对和普遍要求。与此同时,近年来在俄罗斯论文作品中发现了相当一部分不同类型的抄袭。其目的是分析在候选人和博士论文中最常见的剽窃行为。结果。我们考虑了学术作品独立性评价的既定做法。论文作者不道德地使用他人的工作和材料,特别是包括从官方文件和摘要中复制而不确认来源和没有引用;复制已有的评论和章节,从已经辩护的论文;通过用替换日期刷新过时数据和/或用替换研究对象的逐字复制粘贴进行伪造。后一种类型的抄袭涉及实验和统计数据的欺诈,对科学和整个社会构成了特殊的危险。评估论文独立性的主要原则必须是适当的引用和参考,这应该允许读者区分作者的贡献和其他人的文本。论文中不允许逐字引用,无论作者是否声称具有科学新颖性。在这种情况下,提供的是知名的还是独特的数据,以及来源是否受版权保护都无关紧要。现实意义。根据作者的观察,对事实材料进行定性分析,可以作为随后对科学文本中抄袭进行定量分析的起点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Obrazovanie i Nauka-Education and Science
Obrazovanie i Nauka-Education and Science EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
42.90%
发文量
56
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Ensuring the unity of the federal system of scientific and methodological support for teacher professional development: Opportunities and risks Influence of academic-professional hardiness on the subjective well-being of students in socionomic professions Traditional bullying and cyberbullying: Bystander strategies Contemporary contexts of higher medical education development: Patient-centred care in medical students’ understanding Publication activity of Russian university students
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1