Ambiguity in Ethical Standards: Global Versus Local Science in Explaining Academic Plagiarism

Science and Engineering Ethics - Tập 30 - Trang 1-24 - 2024
Katerina S. Guba1, Angelika O. Tsivinskaya1
1Center for Institutional Analysis of Science and Education, European University at St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russia

Tóm tắt

The past decade has seen extensive research carried out on the systematic causes of research misconduct. Simultaneously, less attention has been paid to the variation in academic misconduct between research fields, as most empirical studies focus on one particular discipline. We propose that academic discipline is one of several systematic factors that might contribute to academic misbehavior. Drawing on a neo-institutional approach, we argue that in the developing countries, the norm of textual originality has not drawn equal support across different research fields depending on its level of internationalization. Using plagiarism detection software, we analyzed 2,405 doctoral dissertations randomly selected from all dissertations defended in Russia between 2007 and 2015. We measured the globalization of each academic discipline by calculating the share of publications indexed in the global citation database in relation to overall output. Our results showed that, with an average share of detected borrowings of over 19%, the incidence of plagiarism in Russia is remarkably higher than in Western countries. Overall, disciplines closely follow the pattern of higher globalization associated with a lower percentage of borrowed text. We also found that plagiarism is less prevalent at research-oriented institutions supporting global ethical standards. Our findings suggest that it might be misleading to measure the prevalence of academic misconduct in developing countries without paying attention to variations at the disciplinary level.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Bagues, M., Sylos-Labini, M., & Zinovyeva, N. (2019). A walk on the wild side: ‘Predatory’ journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations. Research Policy, 48, 462–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.013

Berggren, C., & Karabag, S. F. (2019). Scientific misconduct at an elite medical institute: The role of competing institutional logics and fragmented control. Research Policy, 48, 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.020

Biagioli, M. (2012). Recycling texts or stealing time? Plagiarism, authorship, and credit in science. International Journal of Cultural Property, 19, 453–476. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739112000276

Biagioli, M., Kenney, M., Martin, B. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2019). Academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming: A reassessment. Research Policy, 48, 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.025

Bonn, A., & Pinxten, W. (2019). A decade of empirical research on research integrity: What have we (not) looked at? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14, 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619858534

Citron, D. T., & Ginsparg, P. (2015). Patterns of text reuse in a scientific corpus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1415135111

Chekhovich, Y. V., & Khazov, A. V. (2022). Analysis of duplicated publications in Russian journals. Journal of Informetrics, 16(1), 101246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101246

Clark, B. R. (1983). Higher education system: Academic organisation in cross-national perspective. California U.P.

Davis, M. S. (2003). The role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 10, 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/714906092

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

Dobbins, M., & Knill, C. (2009). Higher education policies in Central and Eastern Europe: Convergence toward a common model? Governance, 22, 397–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01445.x

Drori, G. S., & Moon, H. (2006). The changing nature of tertiary education: Neo-Institutional perspectives on cross-national trends in disciplinary enrolment 1965–1995. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), The impact of comparative education research on institutional theory (pp. 163–192). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1479-3679(06)07008-3

El Bairi, K., El Kadmiri, N., & Fourtassi, M. (2022). Exploring scientific misconduct in Morocco based on an analysis of plagiarism perception in a cohort of 1,220 researchers and students. Accountability in Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2110866

Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1086/517897

Fanelli, D., Costas, R., Fang, F. C., Casadevall, A., & Bik, E. M. (2018). Testing hypotheses on risk factors for scientific misconduct via matched-control analysis of papers containing problematic image duplications. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25, 771–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0023-7

Gall, T., & Maniadis, Z. (2019). Evaluating solutions to the problem of false positives. Research Policy, 48, 506–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.005

Gantman, E. R., & Fernández Rodríguez, C. J. (2016). Literature segmentation in management and organization studies: The case of Spanish-speaking countries (2000–10). Research Evaluation, 5, rvv031. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv031

Greve, H. R., Palmer, D., & Pozner, J.-E. (2010). Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct. The Academy of Management Annals, 4, 53–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416521003654186

Gupta, L., Tariq, J., Yessirkepov, M., Zimba, O., Misra, D. P., Agarwal, V., & Gasparyan, A. Y. (2021). Plagiarism in non-anglophone countries: a cross-sectional survey of researchers and journal editors. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 36(39), 21. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e247

Hall, J., & Martin, B. R. (2019). Towards a taxonomy of research misconduct: The case of business school research. Research Policy, 48, 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.006

Hodges, A., Bickham, T., Schmidt, E., & Seawright, L. (2017). Challenging the profiles of a plagiarist: A study of abstracts submitted to an international interdisciplinary conference. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13, 102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0016-3

Hokka, J. (2018). What counts as ‘good sociology’? Conflicting discourses on legitimate sociology in Finland and Sweden. Acta Sociologica, 62(4), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699318813422.

Honig, B., & Bedi, A. (2012). The fox in the hen house: A critical examination of plagiarism among members of the academy of management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 101–123. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0084

Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2019). The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism.’ Research Policy, 48, 492–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.004

Hussinger, K., & Pellens, M. (2019). Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators. Research Policy, 48, 516–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.01.012

Hüther, O., & Krücken, G. (2016). Nested organizational fields: Isomorphism and differentiation among European universities. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 46, 53–83. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0733-558x20160000046003

Kopotev, M., Rostovtsev, A., & Sokolov, M. (2021). Shifting the norm: the case of academic plagiarism detection. The Palgrave Handbook of Digital Russia Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42855-6_27

Lewellyn, K. B., Judge, W. Q., & Smith, A. (2017). Exploring the questionable academic practice of conference paper double dipping. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 16, 217–236. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0033

Lopez Pineiro, C., & Hicks, D. (2015). Reception of Spanish sociology by domestic and foreign audiences differs and has consequences for evaluation. Research Evaluation, 24, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu030

Manley, S. (2021). The use of text-matching software’s similarity scores. Accountability in Research, 13, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1986018

Memon, A. R. (2020). Similarity and plagiarism in scholarly journal submissions: bringing clarity to the concept for authors, reviewers and editors. Journal of Korean Medical Science. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e217

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550

Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Moskaleva, O., Pislyakov, V., Sterligov, I., Akoev, M., & Shabanova, S. (2018). Russian index of science citation: Overview and review. Scientometrics, 116, 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2758-y

Paradeise, C., & Thoenig, J.-C. (2013). Academic institutions in search of quality: Local orders and global standards. Organization Studies, 34, 189–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612473550

Pupovac, V. (2021). The Frequency of plagiarism identified by text-matching software in scientific articles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientometrics, 126(11), 8981–9003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04140-5

Pupovac, V., & Fanelli, D. (2015). Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21, 1331–1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9600-6

Pupovac, V., Prijić-Samaržija, S., & Petrovečki, M. (2017). Research misconduct in the Croatian scientific community: A survey assessing the forms and characteristics of research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23, 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9767-0

Rostovtsev, A. (2017). Plagiarism in the dissertations and scientific publications in Russia. In Plagiarism across Europe and beyond 2017. Conference proceedings (pp. 107–112).

Seeber, M., Cattaneo, M., Meoli, M., & Malighetti, P. (2019). Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions. Research Policy, 48, 478–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.004

Shadnam, M., & Lawrence, T. B. (2011). Understanding widespread misconduct in organizations: An institutional theory of moral collapse. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(3), 379–407. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201121324

Smithson, M., & Shou, Y. (2017). CDF-quantile distributions for modelling random variables on the unit interval. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 70, 412–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12091

Sokolov, M. (2018). The sources of academic localism and globalism in Russian sociology: The choice of professional ideologies and occupational niches among social scientists. Current Sociology, 67, 818–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392118811392

Stage, A. K. (2020). Are national university systems becoming more alike? Long-term developments in staff composition across five countries. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 4, 68–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2019.1702088

Sun, Y.-C. (2013). Do journal authors plagiarize? Using plagiarism detection software to uncover matching text across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.07.002

Thomas, A., & de Bruin, G. P. (2015). Plagiarism in South African management journals. South African Journal of Science, 111, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2015/20140017

Vrana, R. (2018). Editorial challenges in a small scientific community: Study of Croatian editors. Learned Publishing, 31, 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1188

Walsh, J., Lee, Y.-N., & Tang, L. (2019). Pathogenic organization in science: Division of labor and retractions. Research Policy, 48, 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.09.004

Xie, Y., Wang, K., & Kong, Y. (2021). Prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(4), 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9

Yi, N., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2020). Perceptions of plagiarism by biomedical researchers: An online survey in Europe and China. BMC Medical Ethics, 21(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00473-7

Yi, N., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2022). Do biomedical researchers differ in their perceptions of plagiarism across Europe? Findings from an online survey among leading universities. BMC Medical Ethics, 23(78). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00818-4

Zhang, H. Y. (2010). CrossCheck: An effective tool for detecting plagiarism. Learned Publishing, 23, 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1087/20100103

Zhang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Differences between Anglophone and non-Anglophone journals. In Against plagiarism: A guide for editors and authors (pp. 13–38).

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Science and Engineering Ethics

Tập 30

1-24

Thông tin tác giả