Skip to main content
FinDocNet
  • Home
  • More
English ‎(en)‎
English ‎(en)‎ Suomi ‎(fi)‎
You are currently using guest access
Log in
Home
Research Ethics Testi2023
33
 
33.3% Completed 1 / 3

Contents

    • Page
      Page
      Page
      Key course documents
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      A1. Optional Reflective Activity - Research ethics in your research
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      A2. MANDATORY Reflective Activity - Thinking through ethics
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      B1.1 Optional Reflective Activity - Your research context
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      B1.2 MANDATORY Reflective Activity - Subjectivity Statement
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      B2. Optional Reflective Activity - Exploring your values
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      C1. Optional Reflective Activity - Misconduct
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      C2. Optional Reflective Activity - Supervision
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      C3. Optional Reflective Activity - Research Funding
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      D1.Optional Reflective activity - plagiarism
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      D2. Optional Reflective Activity - Authorship
    • Assignment
      Assignment
      Assignment
      D3. Optional Reflective Activity - choosing a journal
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B1.1. Case Study - Research Context
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B1.2. Case Study - Industrially-sponsored research and confidentiality
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B1.3. Case Study - Industrially-sponsored research and conflict of interests
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B2.1. Case Study - Professor Helsinki
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B2.2. Case Study - Workplace Recruiters
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B2.3. Case Study - Police and Rescue Training Methods
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B2.4 Case Study – Doing Research in Tinder
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B3.1. Case Study - Dr. Apple
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B3.2. Case Study - Dr. Sears
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B3.3. Case Study - PhD Student and Data Ownership
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B3.4. Case Study - Another PhD Student and Data Ownership
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B3.5. Case Study - Third PhD Student and Data Ownership
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B4.1. Case Study - Bill and Sara
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B4.2. Case Study - Two kinds of research environments
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      B4.3. Case Study - New Collaborators
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      C1.1. Case Study - Colleague X
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      C1.2. Case Study - Potential Misconduct and Peer-Review
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      C1.3. Case Study - An unsuccessful grant application
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      C2.1. Case Study - Research Misconduct and Supervision
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      C2.2. Case Study - Misconduct and Mentoring
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D1.1. Case Study - The Role of the Editor
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D1.2. Case Study - Self-plagiarism
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D1.3. Case Study - Plagiarism and Peer-Review
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D2.1. Case Study - Determining Author Order
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D2.2. Case Study - Assessing Author Contribution
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D2.3. Case Study - Chancellor
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D2.4. Case Study - Dr. White
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D2.5. Case Study - Dr. Quick
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D3.1. Case Study - Peer-review and confidentiality
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D3.2. Case Study - Shared peer-review?
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D.3.3. Putting Social Advocacy Before the Data
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D4.1. The Magic Key
    • Page
      Page
      Page
      D4.2. Should Scientific Research Be Censored?
    Skip Ohjaaja/Yhteystiedot
    Ohjaaja/Yhteystiedot

    Etunimi Sukunimi

    555 123 4567

    etunimi.sukunimi@sposti.fi

    Tähän voit laittaa tiedot kuka ohjaaja on ja kuinka hänet tavoittaa. Jos tälle ei ole tarvetta, lohkon voi poistaa. 

    Skip Upcoming events
    Upcoming events
    There are no upcoming events
    Go to calendar...
    1. Home
    2. Courses
    3. Tohtorikoulutusverkosto
    4. Vanhat Download-kurssit
    5. RE_Testi23
    6. D1. Misconduct – Plagiarism

    Research Ethics Testi2023

    Animated navigation - turn off
    Animated navigation - turn off
    • D1. Misconduct – Plagiarism

      • Misconduct - Plagiarism

        TENK

        Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity
        Responsible Conduct of Research 2023


        Authorship, publishing and dissemination

        Respect the work of others in the research community, give others’ achievements the value they deserve and make appropriate references to others’ publications. 


        Definition of plagiarism:

        Plagiarism, or unacknowledged borrowing, refers to using others’ work or research ideas without permission or reference. This also violates the original authors’ rights to their scientific work. Plagiarism includes direct copying as well as adapted copying. 

        Plagiarism includes presenting or using another person’s text or part of it, research plan, manuscript, article, result, material, idea, observations or programme code, translation, diagram, image or other visual materials as one’s own without appropriate reference.


        Disregard related to demonstrating the relevance of scientific work or one’s own scholarly achievements:

        • Self-plagiarism, i.e. publishing the same results multiple times ostensibly as new and novel results

        ______________________________________________________________

        This learning materials explores plagiarism (misconduct) and self-plagiarism (disregard). The considerations include:

            1. Definition of plagiarism
            2. Risks of self-plagiarism
            3. Ways to avoid plagiarism and self-plagiarism


        The lecture discusses 'misappropriation' as a separate category of misconduct. However, in the newest RCR guideline this category is included in the definition of plagiarism following the international categorisation.

        Lecture - Plagiarism

        D1_LECTURE_Plagiarism.m4v

        Transcript

        Handout


        D1. Quiz - Plagiarism


        D1.1. Case Study - Role of the Editor

        D1.2. Case Study - Self-Plagiarism?

        D1.3. Case Study - Plagiarism and Peer-Review



        D1.Optional Reflective activity - Plagiarism 

        Resources:

        • iThenticate: paper on Self-Plagiarism
        • iThenticate: types of plagiarism and attribution
        • How to paraphrase: tips and guidelines
        • Izet Masic (2012) - Plagiarism in Scientific Publishing 

        Plagiarism detection software 

        • Feedback Studio (cost per paper submitted)
        • PaperRater (free)



    You are currently using guest access (Log in)
    Policies
    Home
    • English ‎(en)‎
      • English ‎(en)‎
      • Suomi ‎(fi)‎