Journal of Academic Ethics最新文献

{"title":"Hyper-ambition and the Replication Crisis: Why Measures to Promote Research Integrity can Falter","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09528-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09528-5","url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>This paper introduces the concept of ‘hyper-ambition’ in academia as a contributing factor to what has been termed a ‘replication crisis’ across some sciences. The replication crisis is an umbrella term that covers a range of ‘questionable research practices’, from sloppy reporting to fraud. There are already many proposals to address questionable research practices, some of which focus on the values, norms, and motivations of researchers and institutes, and suggest measures to promote research integrity. Yet it is not easy to promote integrity in hyper-competitive academic environments that value high levels of ambition. I argue that in such contexts, it is as likely that a kind of hyper-ambition is fostered that (inadvertently or otherwise) prioritises individual success above all, including to the detriment of scientific quality. In addition, efforts to promote values like integrity falter because they rely on sufficient uniformity in motivations or tendencies. Codes and guidance promoting integrity are, however, likely to influence those for whom such values are not optional, while others simply find ways around them. To demonstrate this I offer a thought experiment in which we consider the imaginary working situations of two ordinary academics. I conclude that tackling questionable research practices in the light of the replication crisis requires robust ‘top down’ measures that expect and accommodate a broader range of academic values, motivations, and tendencies, while challenging those that help to promote hyper-ambition.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140563095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Teaching Scientific Integrity in Academia: What and How Students Want to Learn?","authors":"N. Sira, M. Decker, C. Lemke, A. Winkens, C. Leicht-Scholten, D. Groß","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09527-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09527-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Training in scientific integrity continues to be an important topic in universities and other research institutions. Its main goal is to prevent scientific misconduct and promote good scientific practice. However, there is still no consensus on how scientific integrity should be taught. Moreover, the perspective of those who receive such training is often underrepresented. Yet it is precisely their interests and needs that must be considered when developing educational programs. Against this backdrop, we conducted a mixed-methods study with the goal of capturing students’ perspectives on the teaching of scientific integrity. Using our online Scientific Integrity course, we explore what specific aspects of digital teaching on scientific integrity are valued, and explore other topics of interest from students’ perspectives on scientific integrity. The article presents (1) students’ self-assessment before (Q1) and after (Q2) taking the online Scientific Integrity course at the RWTH Aachen University in Germany (2) students’ feedback on the course format, video, exam, organization, and support (Q2) (3) a list of other topics of interest in the area of scientific integrity (Q2). The research outcomes demonstrate an improvement in the study participants’ self-assessment after following the online course and there is a general satisfaction among the students in regard to the course digital format and its components although a desire to have more exchange and discussion was expressed. Further topics of interest in the area of scientific integrity that study participants would like to learn about have a practical appeal and among others include research pressure, examples of applications, preventive measures, theory of science, citation rules, funding of university research. Although the results relate to our course, they provide insight into students’ perspectives on online teaching of scientific integrity. Thus, they may be helpful to higher education institutions developing online courses on scientific integrity that are tailored to university students.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140324132","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evidence-Based Guidelines for Low-Risk Ethics Applicants: A Qualitative Analysis of the Most Frequent Feedback Made by Human Research Ethics Proposal Reviewers","authors":"Sarven S. McLinton, Sarah N. Menz, Bernard Guerin, Elspeth McInnes","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09523-w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09523-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) reviewers often provide similar feedback across applications, which suggests that the problem lies in researcher awareness of key issues rather than novel, unsolvable challenges. If common problems can be addressed before lodgement by applicants referencing clear evidence-based supports (e.g., FAQs on common application shortcomings), it would improve efficiency for HREC members and expedite approvals. We aim to inform such supports by analysing the patterns in the most frequent feedback made by HREC members during review processes. We collected every instance (<i>N</i> = 4,195) of feedback made on <i>N</i> = 197 ‘low-risk’ protocols by all HREC staff (<i>N</i> = 16) at one institution over the course of a full year (2019). Reflexive thematic analysis to identify themes (and content analysis to determine relative frequency) revealed that the top three themes are consistent with existing literature: Consent, Administrative, and Methodological concerns. However, we identified important new themes that are not captured in previous research, including ‘Risk to Researchers’, ‘Commercial benefit, scope and scale’, ‘Diversity’ (covering issues of cultural sensitivity, language and accessibility), as well as fair right to a complaints process. Our thorough exploration of information-rich primary data marks an important methodological improvement over previous studies and offers a theoretical contribution to understanding themes that have heretofore been overlooked in the ethics review process. By identifying the common challenges experienced in HREC review we can better inform tailored supports to applicants (by extension reducing workload burdens on HREC systems) and reduce their perceived barriers to engaging in challenging but meaningful research.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"181 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140298744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An Imperative Responsibility in Professional Role Socialization: Addressing Incivility","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09524-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09524-9","url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>The study used a thematic analysis to examine student and faculty responses to two qualitative questions focused on their perceptions of the consequence of incivility and solutions that would embed civility expectations as a key element to professional role socialization in higher education. Participants included students and faculty across multiple academic programs and respondent subgroups at a regional university in the southern United States. A new adapted conceptual model using Clark’s in <em>Nursing Education Perspectives</em>, <em>28</em>(2), 93–97 (<span>2007</span>, revised 2020) Conceptual Model for Fostering Civility in Nursing Education and Daniel Goleman’s in <em>Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ</em>. Bantam Books (<span>1995</span>) Emotional Intelligence domains was used as the framework for this study to give meaning and context to its findings. For this group of respondents, the study found that seventy percent of faculty and students agree that incivility has the largest impact on the emotional intelligence domain of self-management, which includes negative emotional outcomes, loss of respect, negative professional and student outcomes, poor academic outcomes, attrition, and less success. Leadership in higher education will strengthen their institutions by using a relational approach centered on communication skill-building to ensure that faculty have been socialized to the importance of civil professional behavior and that stakeholders collectively explore and agree on the meaning and organizational integration of civility. </p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140165843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Examining the Impact of Dramatization Simulation on Nursing Students’ Ethical Attitudes: A Mixed-Method Study","authors":"Yadigar Ordu, Sakine Yılmaz","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09522-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09522-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This research investigated how dramatization simulation affected nursing students' ethical attitudes. Most nurses and nursing students encounter ethical issues in their healthcare practices. Students who receive an education in ethics are better equipped to solve ethical problems, develop ethical sensitivity, and adopt an ethical attitude. Dramatization simulation, which has recently been applied in nursing education, is said to be an effective teaching method. A mixed-method approach was employed in the research. The sample consisted of 60 students enrolled in the final year of the Nursing Department of the Faculty of Health Sciences at a State university. Students were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. In the experimental group, the dramatization simulation method was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the training method. The data were collected using the Descriptive Characteristics Form, Ethical Principles Attitude Scale, and Semi-Structured Focus Group Interview Form. SPSS 22 software was used to analyze the quantitative data, and Colaizzi's phenomenological analysis and MAXQDA 2020 software were used to analyze the qualitative data. The post-test total score of the group ethical attitude scale for the students in the experimental group showed a statistically significant improvement (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). Additionally, the students in the experimental group's post-test Ethical Attitude Scale total score outperformed those in the control group statistically significantly (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). The following themes were found: (1) perspectives on dramatization simulation and (2) perspectives on ethical attitude. To help nursing students develop ethical attitudes, we recommend using dramatization simulation as a teaching method. In addition, we recommend that this study be conducted in larger sample groups and on different topics. The recommendations were explored in more detail in the article.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140165967","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Behavioral Misconduct as a Basis for Scientific Retractions","authors":"August Namuth, Samuel Bruton, Lisa Wright, Donald Sacco","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09518-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09518-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Increasingly, scholarly journals have begun retracting published articles for reasons other than those described by advisory organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Numerous research articles have been retracted of late due to political concerns. Additionally, some articles have been retracted for behavioral misconduct, which was also the subject of a recent COPE discussion forum. ‘Behavioral misconduct’ denotes harmful or immoral behavior of one or more authors that is unrelated to the article’s findings or content. We investigated whether federally funded research scientists considered behavioral misconduct a valid reason for retracting published findings and whether the type of behavioral misconduct involved, the level of the expected scientific impact of the article in question, or the kind of editorial action taken affected their support of retraction. Of the 464 participants who took our survey, we found that researchers largely oppose retraction of a published article or removing an author when scientists commit behavioral misconduct, regardless of the type of misconduct involved. However, there was greater support for retraction when the misconduct was financial as compared to racial or sexual misconduct. Not surprisingly, researchers were more likely to use the published information in question in their own work when its impact was high. Future studies should investigate the extent to which these findings are moderated by researchers’ editorial experience and other demographic factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140070559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Bibliometric Analysis on Academic Integrity","authors":"Muammer Maral","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09519-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09519-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This research aimed to identify patterns, intellectual structure, contributions, social interactions, gaps, and future research directions in the field of academic integrity (AI). A bibliometric analysis was conducted with 1406 publications covering the period 1966–2023. The results indicate that there has been significant growth in AI literature over the last decade. The most influential publications focused on academic integrity violations such as cheating, plagiarism, and academic misconduct. The largest contribution to the field has come from journals that publish specifically on ethics and academic integrity. Studies in the historical origins of the field have focused on students’ cheating behavior. The thematic structure of the field has focused on academic integrity and its violations, cheating, academic dishonesty, academic integrity in the context of online education, research ethics, and research on the detection of academic violations. The trending topics in the field are academic dishonesty, especially plagiarism and cheating, and online education. The UK, USA, Canada, and Australia have been the most collaborative and productive. More research is needed to address the AI field in the context of new developments.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140036881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Academic Integrity Policy Analysis of Chilean Universities","authors":"Beatriz Antonieta Moya, Sarah Elaine Eaton","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09515-w","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09515-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p>New technologies could facilitate new ways of cheating. This emerging scenario places academic integrity policy in higher education institutions as critical. Academic integrity scholars have designed conceptual frameworks to analyze academic integrity policy. The body of the literature on academic integrity policy analysis includes studies developed in North America, Europe, and Australia. However, insight into several regions of the world is lacking. This pioneering study in the Chilean context analyzes documents addressing academic integrity at forty-three accredited universities. Using a qualitative research design, we framed this policy analysis in the five core elements of exemplary academic integrity policy: access, approach, responsibility, detail, and support. The findings revealed challenges with accessing documents online, a strong presence of legal language that might not be understandable to all students, and a scarcity of information about review cycles. The punitive approach was prevalent, with a significant focus on students’ conduct. Signs of collaboration and mechanisms for promoting academic integrity cultures were nearly absent. The documents primarily targeted students and the roles of other stakeholders concentrated on the enforcement of sanctions and misconduct investigations. The analysis also showed the use of general definitions to describe academic integrity breaches, inconsistency across the system in defining plagiarism and a lack of guidance to address contract cheating and unauthorized use of generative artificial intelligence. The findings also highlighted the unavailability of institutional support to teach, learn, and research with integrity or references to research-based practices. We propose twelve practical recommendations for policymakers and academic integrity advocates.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"144 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140001883","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Interrogating the Meaning of ‘Quality’ in Utterances and Activities Protected by Academic Freedom","authors":"Joseph C. Hermanowicz","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09512-z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09512-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p>“Quality” refers nominatively to a standard of performance. Quality is the central idea that differentiates speech protected by academic freedom (the right to worthwhile utterances) from constitutionally protected speech (the right to say anything at all). Extant documents and discussions state that professional peers determine quality based on norms of a field. But professional peers deem utterances and activities as consonant with quality only in reference to criteria that establish meaning of the term. In the absence of articulation, these criteria are ambiguous. Consequently, there exists recurrent confusion about what faculty members have a defensible right to say and do. This article develops an ontology of quality in reference to higher education teaching, a component of academic careers generally not subject to extensive peer review and where instructors thereby exercise considerable autonomy. The ontology identifies three criteria that bound quality: <i>constraint, context,</i> and <i>amplitude</i>. Boundedness exists only insofar as boundaries are controlled. The article examines two types of problems in professional control that affect quality: <i>slippage</i> and <i>overreach</i>. Both are instances of organizational deviance and abrogation of professional ethics. It is argued that the patterns threaten the structural integrity and public confidence of faculty, fields, and higher education institutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139981398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reflections on a Restructuring Initiative: Conceptualization, Implementation, and Reflection on an “Episode in Contradictions”","authors":"Benjamin Robert Forsyth, Timothy Gilson, Susan Etscheidt","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09516-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09516-9","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper evaluates and critiques a recent restructuring initiative for a college at a Midwestern university in the United States in which three academic departments were reduced down to two departments. The case study presents the experiences and perspectives of three faculty members– one from each of those departments–who participated in the restructuring process. The paper first introduces the current challenges and complexities in Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) which initiate and influence restructuring efforts After laying out the context of our case study, we examine faculty perceptions of the purpose, the plan, and the process of restructuring through an interpretive phenomenological case study analysis using Putnam and Nicotera’s (2009) Communicative Constitution of Organization (CCO) as a theoretical framework. The findings are presented as three integrated themes including the importance of a clear and purposeful rationale, maintenance of consistent communication and organization, and an ethical commitment to faculty voice and choice. The ethical implications for each theme are discussed and recommendations for restructuring initiatives are offered. The results of this study will help inform restructuring initiatives in colleges and universities with a particular emphasis on characteristics of effective, ethical leadership and the value of strong communicative elements when engaging in restructuring.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139926803","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}