Journal of Academic Ethics最新文献

Several widely publicized incidents of academic research misconduct, combined with the politicization of the role of science in public health and policy discourse (e.g., COVID, immunizations) threaten to undermine faith in the integrity of empirical research. Researchers often maintain that peer-review and study replication allow the field to self-police and self-correct; however, stark disparities between official reports of academic research misconduct and self-reports of academic researchers, specifically with regard to data fabrication, belie this argument. Further, systemic imperatives in academic settings often incentivize institutional responses that focus on minimizing reputational harm rather than the impact of fabricated data on the integrity of extant and future research.

Learning in virtual environments is an ethical experience. This research aimed to understand the ethical experience of a virtual learning environment from the perspective of university students and their teachers. The participants were 205 higher education students from different Spanish-speaking countries (Colombia, Argentina, Mexico, Ecuador, and Spain) and 30 teachers who acted as tutors in virtual education. The study used a design-based research method and quantitative instruments for the collection of empirical data. The data analysis showed that students and teachers perceive responsibility, commitment, and respect as values inherent to virtual education, and may have a moderately different ethical experience based on these values. With this research, we intend to contribute to a better understanding of the coexistence of human beings in virtual learning environments. We argue that it is necessary to question or rethink the pedagogical paradigms that guide virtual education, endowing them with humanity, and recognizing their ethical dimension as funda-mental.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10805-022-09459-z.

The world relies on authentic research that guides legislation, policy formulations, and governmental and corporate actions. Therefore, researchers globally should be aware of academic integrity and publication ethics. This research delved into plagiarism that severely undermines any scientific study. It explores the relationship between adverse attitudes (attitudes that favor plagiarism) and plagiaristic behavior. We probed deeper into the theories of planned behavior, reasoned action, and ethical theories of rational self-interest, cultural acceptance, and deontology to propose corrective measures as an intervention to reduce adverse attitudes and plagiaristic behavior. Upon empirical testing of the said propositions through two studies (Study 1, n₁ = 2609; Study 2, n₂ = 2678), we ascertained a significant negative relationship between corrective measures and adverse attitudes and corrective measures and plagiaristic behavior. We also empirically examined the mediating effect of adverse attitudes on the relationship between corrective measures and plagiaristic behavior. The results confirm the mediation model, in which academics subjected to corrective actions reported reduced plagiaristic behavior through reduced adverse attitudes. The findings further the literature on plagiarism and provide crucial implications for managing plagiaristic behavior among academics. The study also provides specific corrective actions that educational administrators should initiate to ensure academic integrity.

Scientific malpractice is not just due to researchers having bad intentions, but also due to a lack of education concerning research integrity practices. Besides the importance of institutionalised trainings on research integrity, research supervisors play an important role in translating what doctoral students learn during research integrity formal sessions. Supervision practices and role modelling influence directly and indirectly supervisees' attitudes and behaviour toward responsible research. Research supervisors can not be left alone in this effort. Research institutions are responsible for supporting supervisors in being more aware of their RI function, and in supporting responsible supervision practices to have a positive cascading effect on supervisees' research practices. We interviewed 22 European research supervisors to investigate how they perceive their role as research integrity trainers and their real-life supervision practices. Moreover, we investigated their points of view concerning the role of research institutions in supporting supervision practices. Although there are different commonalities in supervisors' perception of their research integrity-related role, differences are emphasised depending on the supervisors' characteristics such as academic domain, seniority, working country and gender. In addition, supervisors' way of mentoring depend also on supervisees' learning curve. Overall, all supervisors agreed on institutions playing an important role in support their supervision effort and practices. This study aims to be a starting point for better understanding research integrity supervision practices and the role of institutions in supporting them. Moreover, it puts the basis to further investigate differences in supervision practices depending on supervisors' characteristics.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10805-022-09468-y.