科学剽窃——德国的法规与实践

B. Schloer
{"title":"科学剽窃——德国的法规与实践","authors":"B. Schloer","doi":"10.32589/2408-9885.2022.17.273410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“Good scientific practice” became more and more relevant in recent times, because publicationsand academic titles are an important factor for careers and economic benefits. In order to achieve a sufficient level of publications, an increasing number of authors violate the rules of good scientific practice; reliable statistics are not available, but some universities report an astonishing increase of plagiarism. This phenomenon must also be seen in the context of today’s way of “measuring” scientific quality: the criteria “quantity” prevails. This article contains a presentation of criteria, which German administrative courts apply when assessing claims against the decision of universities on the deprivation of academic titles. At the first glance, it seems that the number of texts of another author is the main criteria for the decision, whethera scientific work is a plagiarism or not. But this criterion is only an indicator, the relevant criterion is, whether the author “systematically and in a planned way used other authors’ thoughts and ideas. As mentioned above, the quantity of publications is – unfortunately – the prevailing criterion for scientific quality. This leads to a complicated form of plagiarism, the “self-plagiarism”. From the legal point of view, an author can use his ideas and texts without limits. But due to the trend to focus on the number of publications, the self-plagiarism is considered as a violation of good scientific practice – but without the consequences, which are applied in case of real plagiarism. This core part of the article is framed with the description of the relevant norms of the German Constitution, of the intellectual property law, the laws of the Länder and statutes of universities. As an example, the statute of the university of Regensburg served for the description of the procedure of a university, when a suspect of plagiarism has been revealed.","PeriodicalId":262521,"journal":{"name":"Germanistik in der ukraine","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scientific plagiarism - regulations and practice in Germany\",\"authors\":\"B. Schloer\",\"doi\":\"10.32589/2408-9885.2022.17.273410\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"“Good scientific practice” became more and more relevant in recent times, because publicationsand academic titles are an important factor for careers and economic benefits. In order to achieve a sufficient level of publications, an increasing number of authors violate the rules of good scientific practice; reliable statistics are not available, but some universities report an astonishing increase of plagiarism. This phenomenon must also be seen in the context of today’s way of “measuring” scientific quality: the criteria “quantity” prevails. This article contains a presentation of criteria, which German administrative courts apply when assessing claims against the decision of universities on the deprivation of academic titles. At the first glance, it seems that the number of texts of another author is the main criteria for the decision, whethera scientific work is a plagiarism or not. But this criterion is only an indicator, the relevant criterion is, whether the author “systematically and in a planned way used other authors’ thoughts and ideas. As mentioned above, the quantity of publications is – unfortunately – the prevailing criterion for scientific quality. This leads to a complicated form of plagiarism, the “self-plagiarism”. From the legal point of view, an author can use his ideas and texts without limits. But due to the trend to focus on the number of publications, the self-plagiarism is considered as a violation of good scientific practice – but without the consequences, which are applied in case of real plagiarism. This core part of the article is framed with the description of the relevant norms of the German Constitution, of the intellectual property law, the laws of the Länder and statutes of universities. As an example, the statute of the university of Regensburg served for the description of the procedure of a university, when a suspect of plagiarism has been revealed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":262521,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Germanistik in der ukraine\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Germanistik in der ukraine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32589/2408-9885.2022.17.273410\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Germanistik in der ukraine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32589/2408-9885.2022.17.273410","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,“良好的科学实践”变得越来越重要,因为出版物和学术头衔是职业和经济利益的重要因素。为了达到足够的发表水平,越来越多的作者违反了良好科学实践的规则;虽然没有可靠的统计数据,但一些大学报告称,剽窃现象出现了惊人的增长。这种现象也必须放在今天“衡量”科学质量的方法的背景下来看待:“数量”的标准盛行。本文介绍了德国行政法院在对大学关于剥夺学术头衔的决定提出索赔时所适用的标准。乍一看,另一位作者的文章数量似乎是决定科学作品是否抄袭的主要标准。但这个标准只是一个指标,相关的标准是作者是否“系统地、有计划地使用了其他作者的思想和观点”。如上所述,不幸的是,出版物的数量是衡量科学质量的普遍标准。这就导致了一种复杂的抄袭形式——“自我抄袭”。从法律的角度来看,作者可以不受限制地使用他的思想和文本。但由于关注发表论文数量的趋势,自我抄袭被认为是违反良好的科学实践——但没有后果,这是在真正的剽窃情况下适用的。文章的核心部分是对德国宪法、知识产权法、Länder法律和大学章程的相关规范的描述。例如,雷根斯堡大学的章程用于描述大学在发现剽窃嫌疑时的程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Scientific plagiarism - regulations and practice in Germany
“Good scientific practice” became more and more relevant in recent times, because publicationsand academic titles are an important factor for careers and economic benefits. In order to achieve a sufficient level of publications, an increasing number of authors violate the rules of good scientific practice; reliable statistics are not available, but some universities report an astonishing increase of plagiarism. This phenomenon must also be seen in the context of today’s way of “measuring” scientific quality: the criteria “quantity” prevails. This article contains a presentation of criteria, which German administrative courts apply when assessing claims against the decision of universities on the deprivation of academic titles. At the first glance, it seems that the number of texts of another author is the main criteria for the decision, whethera scientific work is a plagiarism or not. But this criterion is only an indicator, the relevant criterion is, whether the author “systematically and in a planned way used other authors’ thoughts and ideas. As mentioned above, the quantity of publications is – unfortunately – the prevailing criterion for scientific quality. This leads to a complicated form of plagiarism, the “self-plagiarism”. From the legal point of view, an author can use his ideas and texts without limits. But due to the trend to focus on the number of publications, the self-plagiarism is considered as a violation of good scientific practice – but without the consequences, which are applied in case of real plagiarism. This core part of the article is framed with the description of the relevant norms of the German Constitution, of the intellectual property law, the laws of the Länder and statutes of universities. As an example, the statute of the university of Regensburg served for the description of the procedure of a university, when a suspect of plagiarism has been revealed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信