引文道德:规范与行为的探索性调查

IF 2.2 Q1 ETHICS
Samuel V. Bruton, Alicia L. Macchione, Mitch Brown, Mohammad Hosseini
{"title":"引文道德:规范与行为的探索性调查","authors":"Samuel V. Bruton, Alicia L. Macchione, Mitch Brown, Mohammad Hosseini","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09539-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The ethics of citation has attracted increased attention in recent discussions of research and publication ethics, fraud and plagiarism. Little attempt has been made, however, to situate specific citation misbehaviors in terms of broader ethical practices and principles. To investigate researchers’ perceptions of citation norms, we surveyed active US researchers receiving federal funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Participants (<i>n</i> = 257) were asked about citation norms they endorse (norm reports), the behaviors they perceive others to engage in (peer reports), and their own citation behaviors (self-reports). Our analyses showed that while considerable discrepancies exist between norm reports, peer reports and self-reports, respondents’ discipline has no significant effect on these. Participants indicated that their own practices and that of their peers falls short of the norms they endorse, but that their own behavior is much less ethically deficient than that of their peers. An exploratory factor analysis revealed that ethically questionable citation behaviors could be grouped usefully into three categories: strategic citations, neglectful citations, and blind citations. Contrary to our hypothesis, the survey showed that greater experience does not always result in better citation practices. A particularly divisive issue pertained to intentionally citing authors from underrepresented demographic groups for reasons of social justice, but broad support for this practice is lacking, although arts and humanities scholars are slightly more supportive. Most researchers view questionable citation practices as negatively affecting their disciplines. Our findings suggest the need for clearer articulations of the citation norms and improved guidance and training about citations.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Citation Ethics: An Exploratory Survey of Norms and Behaviors\",\"authors\":\"Samuel V. Bruton, Alicia L. Macchione, Mitch Brown, Mohammad Hosseini\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10805-024-09539-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The ethics of citation has attracted increased attention in recent discussions of research and publication ethics, fraud and plagiarism. Little attempt has been made, however, to situate specific citation misbehaviors in terms of broader ethical practices and principles. To investigate researchers’ perceptions of citation norms, we surveyed active US researchers receiving federal funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Participants (<i>n</i> = 257) were asked about citation norms they endorse (norm reports), the behaviors they perceive others to engage in (peer reports), and their own citation behaviors (self-reports). Our analyses showed that while considerable discrepancies exist between norm reports, peer reports and self-reports, respondents’ discipline has no significant effect on these. Participants indicated that their own practices and that of their peers falls short of the norms they endorse, but that their own behavior is much less ethically deficient than that of their peers. An exploratory factor analysis revealed that ethically questionable citation behaviors could be grouped usefully into three categories: strategic citations, neglectful citations, and blind citations. Contrary to our hypothesis, the survey showed that greater experience does not always result in better citation practices. A particularly divisive issue pertained to intentionally citing authors from underrepresented demographic groups for reasons of social justice, but broad support for this practice is lacking, although arts and humanities scholars are slightly more supportive. Most researchers view questionable citation practices as negatively affecting their disciplines. Our findings suggest the need for clearer articulations of the citation norms and improved guidance and training about citations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Academic Ethics\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Academic Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09539-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Academic Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09539-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在最近关于研究和出版伦理、欺诈和剽窃的讨论中,引用伦理引起了越来越多的关注。然而,很少有人尝试从更广泛的伦理实践和原则的角度来审视具体的引用不当行为。为了调查研究人员对引文规范的看法,我们对接受美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)、美国国家科学基金会(NSF)和美国国家人文基金会(NEH)联邦资助的在职美国研究人员进行了调查。参与者(n = 257)被问及他们认可的引文规范(规范报告)、他们认为他人的引文行为(同行报告)以及他们自己的引文行为(自我报告)。我们的分析表明,虽然规范报告、同行报告和自我报告之间存在着相当大的差异,但受访者的学科背景对这些差异没有显著影响。受访者表示,他们自己和同行的做法都没有达到他们所认可的规范,但他们自己的行为在道德方面的缺陷要比同行少得多。探索性因素分析表明,有道德问题的引用行为可以有效地分为三类:策略性引用、忽视性引用和盲目引用。与我们的假设相反,调查显示,更丰富的经验并不总能带来更好的引用实践。一个特别容易引起争议的问题是,出于社会公正的考虑,故意引用来自代表性不足的人口群体的作者,但这种做法缺乏广泛的支持,尽管艺术和人文学者的支持率稍高一些。大多数研究人员认为有问题的引用做法会对其学科产生负面影响。我们的研究结果表明,有必要更清晰地阐明引文规范,并改进有关引文的指导和培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Citation Ethics: An Exploratory Survey of Norms and Behaviors

The ethics of citation has attracted increased attention in recent discussions of research and publication ethics, fraud and plagiarism. Little attempt has been made, however, to situate specific citation misbehaviors in terms of broader ethical practices and principles. To investigate researchers’ perceptions of citation norms, we surveyed active US researchers receiving federal funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Participants (n = 257) were asked about citation norms they endorse (norm reports), the behaviors they perceive others to engage in (peer reports), and their own citation behaviors (self-reports). Our analyses showed that while considerable discrepancies exist between norm reports, peer reports and self-reports, respondents’ discipline has no significant effect on these. Participants indicated that their own practices and that of their peers falls short of the norms they endorse, but that their own behavior is much less ethically deficient than that of their peers. An exploratory factor analysis revealed that ethically questionable citation behaviors could be grouped usefully into three categories: strategic citations, neglectful citations, and blind citations. Contrary to our hypothesis, the survey showed that greater experience does not always result in better citation practices. A particularly divisive issue pertained to intentionally citing authors from underrepresented demographic groups for reasons of social justice, but broad support for this practice is lacking, although arts and humanities scholars are slightly more supportive. Most researchers view questionable citation practices as negatively affecting their disciplines. Our findings suggest the need for clearer articulations of the citation norms and improved guidance and training about citations.

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
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Journal of Academic Ethics is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary, peer reviewed journal which examines all ethical issues which arise within the scope of university purposes. The journal publishes original research in the ethics of research production and publication; teaching and student relations; leadership; management and governance. The journal offers sustained inquiry into such topics as the ethics of university strategic directions; ethical investments; sustainability practices; the responsible conduct of research and teaching; collegiality and faculty relations; and the appropriate models of ethical and accountable governance for universities in the 21st century.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信