Education Research Journal Vol. 6(12): 228 – 234, December 2016
Available online at http://resjournals.com/journals/educational-research-journal.html
ISSN: 2026-6332 ©2016 International Research Journals
Full Length Research Paper
Minimising unethical behaviour in research and
publishing: An author’s perspective
*Magwa Wiseman1 and Magwa Simuforosa2
1
Reformed Church University, Zimbabwe
2
Great Zimbabwe University, Zimbabwe
*Corresponding Author‟s Email: [email protected]
Abstract
Academic publishing deals with a wide variety of ethical issues which can be caused by misbehaving
authors, editors who abuse their positions or conflicts between commercial interests and principles of
editorial freedom and integrity. However, cases of unethical academic behaviour are on the rise despite
growing awareness and focus on the issue of ethical misconduct in research and publishing. Plagiarism,
fabrication and falsification of data are some of the few forms of academic misconduct which can ruin careers
of academics and society at large. Unethical behaviour in the academic community has gradually become a
kind of disease that everyday takes the character of an epidemic. This is so because the publish-or-perish
pressure that exists in Universities in particular has driven scholars to make sloppy mistakes or even falsify
data. In this paper, the authors discuss the wide range of immoral activities in research and publishing with
an aim to sensitise and encourage researchers and writers to respect ethical principles that guide academic
writing. The paper begins by presenting standard ethical principles before discussing the various types of
research misconduct with a view to offer guidance to authors, editors and reviewers on how to detect and
prevent them. The paper concludes by affirming that editors have a right to reject papers if there is doubt on
whether appropriate procedures would have been used to collect data for the article under review.
Introduction
Unethical behaviour or misconduct in research and
publishing refers to a wide range of immoral activities in
the book publishing industry such as plagiarism,
inaccurate referencing, data fabrication, falsification of
data or inappropriate authorship to mention but a few. In
addition to the book publishing industry, unethical
conduct can also occur in print and online journal
publications. It is however very easy for authors to
unwittingly commit misdemeanours because the exact
boundaries where behaviour becomes unethical is often
a matter of debate. Therefore, it is advisable that
authors should receive training in ethics of research and
publishing. This calls for institutions undertaking
research (both academic and commercial) to promote
ethical behaviour and ensure that institutional
publication policies are in line with best practice. This
paper begins by presenting what is deemed acceptable
ethical behaviour in research before discussing the
various types of research misconduct with a view to offer
guidance to authors, reviewers and editors on how to
detect and prevent them.
Background
History has repeatedly demonstrated that horrible
atrocities can occur without proper ethical guidelines
and enforcement. The most distressing ones are the
Guatemala and the Tuskegee Syphilis studies carried
th
out by American researchers in the 20 century. In an
effort to avoid a repeat of such atrocities in future,
President Barack Obama, on 24 November 2010 set up
a Presidential Commission to conduct a thorough review
of current regulations and international standards to
assess whether they adequately protect human subjects
in federally supported scientific studies, no matter where
they occur. The President had this to say about abuse of
human subjects in research;
Recently we discovered that the US Public
Health Service conducted research on sexually
228
transmitted diseases in Guatemala from 1946 to
1948 involving the intentional infection of
vulnerable human populations. The research
was clearly unethical… (Gutmann and Wagner,
2011: 6).
The Guatemala syphilis experiment is an American
medical research project that was conducted on 5500
unsuspecting citizens from 1946 to 1948. It is infamous
for its unethical experimentation on vulnerable human
populations in Guatemala. The study population
included prisoners, sex workers, soldiers, children and
psychiatric patients who were deliberately infected with
syphilis, gonorrhoea or chancroid to test the value of
different medications on preventing certain sexually
transmitted diseases (STDs). All members of the study
population were enrolled in the experiments without their
consent (Rogers, 2015).
In a related incident in the United States of America,
President Clinton of the United States of America on
May 16, 1997 apologized to the survivors and families of
hundreds of men in Alabama who were used in a
research project to study the progression of untreated
syphilis. These men were mainly villagers from Macon
County of Alabama who were very poor African
Americans and had very few resources available to
them (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2005).
In 1932, when physicians and researchers involved with
United States Public Health Services offered them free
medical care, they believed they had found treatment for
what they had been told was „bad blood‟. Instead, they
were enrolled in an observational research study without
their knowledge or consent. In exchange for their
participation the men received free medical examination
(primarily to provide data for the study), transportation
and hot meals on the days of their examination. Over
and above these „benefits‟, they were also given
US$50.00 pocket money. Even though some
rudimentary remedies for syphilis were available in the
early years of the study, they were not offered to these
men so that the study of the natural history of the
untreated disease would not be jeopardised. The study
of untreated syphilis in the male Negro did not end until
1972 that is, forty years after it had begun. Even twenty
years after penicillin had been discovered as an
effective treatment for syphilis, the research subjects
were denied treatment.
In yet another similar incident, on September 17,
1997, 18 year-old Jesse Gelsinger died after being
injected with a genetically crippling virus while
participating in a gene therapy trial at the University of
Pennyslvania (Winter, 2003). Again in America, a
healthy 24-yearold volunteer named Ellen Roche was
asphyxiated after inhaling a test chemical during a
clinical trial on asthma drugs at John‟s Hopkins
University. In the aftermath of these deaths, Gelsinger‟s
family sued the University of Pennyslvania and the U.S.
office of Human Research Protections had to put an
immediate halt to all federally funded research on
humans at facilities at John‟s Hopkins University.
During World War 2, the Germans also committed a
significant number of horrifying human medical
experiments on prisoners of war and concentration
camp inmates (Proctor, 1988; Weindling, 2005). These
experiments
included
infecting
non-voluntary
„participants‟ with malaria, freezing them for frostbite
research, performing pressurization experiments with
high altitudes, exposing their bodies to various industrial
materials and introducing them to various deathly gases,
bacterium, viruses and poisons (Spitz, 2005). These
experiments were often carried out in sadistic manner
with no concern for scientific principles and the
participants‟ ultimate well-being. Many survivors suffered
severe pain and experienced horrible deaths in large
numbers with little to negligible gain for their unwilling
sacrifices (Weindling, 2005).
In Britain, a pathologist, Dr, Dick van Velsen
systematically „harvested‟ for seven years, organs from
dead children in an unnecessary illegal and unethical
way (Thomas, 2001). Rather than being used for
medical research, much of the tissue was stockpiled.
Tabloids in Britain had different pet names for the
accused pathologist, Dr Dick van Velsen. The Daily
Mirror for example, called him „The Baby Butcher‟ and
The Daily Express called him „Monster‟. Furthermore, in
Britain, according to Thomas (ibid), the international
papers reported that children‟s hospitals throughout
Britain routinely stripped organs from dead babies often
without their parents‟ consent. It is this professional
misconduct referred to above which usually leads to
revulsion toward legitimate research projects.
A survey study of 315 scientists in the Netherlands
showed that 15% admitted that they fabricate or falsify
research data and more than 25% admitted to deleting
negative
data
from
their
research
findings
(www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834250). Furthermore,
in April 2012, Mr Paul Schmitt resigned as President of
Hungary after his doctorate was withdrawn by
Semmelweis University in Budapest. According to a
BBC report, Semmelweis accused Schmitt of
plagiarising entire passages of his doctoral thesis. There
was at least partial copying on nearly 200 pages of his
thesis (Semmelweis University Research Committee
Report, 2012). Similarly in South Africa, the former head
of acquisitions for the Armaments Corporation of South
Africa, Shamim “Chippy” Shaik was stripped of his PhD
from the then University of Natal now University of
KwaZulu-Natal in 2008 following reports that he had
plagiarised „more than two thirds‟ of his mechanical
engineering
doctorate
(www.education.seattlepi.com/consequencesplagiarism-cheating-1161.html).
In Zimbabwe, a country in Southern Africa, the ghost
of the McGown case continues to haunt the country‟s
civil society, several years after the anesthetist Dr
Richard McGown, used an epidural caudal injection of
morphine adrenaline for post-operative pain relief
(MOTO, 1996). As a result of the doctor‟s irregular
methods of treatment, several people died. Daniel
Tinashe Zengeni (Zimbabwean) collapsed and suffered
severe brain damage after epidural caudal morphine
and lignocaine (a synthetic compound used as a local
anaesthetic for dental surgery) were used for
circumcision on 21 November 1985; Tsitsi Chidodo
(Zimbabwean) died in January 1987 following a
procedure to fill tooth cavities; Kalpesh Magindas (of
Indian parents) died in July 1988 following a
circumcision in which epidural morphine and lignocaine
229
were used as pain relief; Lavender Kaminwa (Kenyan)
died in August 1990 a few hours after an appendix
operation in which epidural caudal morphine and
lignocaine were used for pain relief. Rose Apinhe
Osazuwa, Irene Papatheocharus and many others died
a few hours after epidural morphine and lignoactive had
been used for pain relief (ibid). In this medical
experiment by a renowned medical practitioner, children
and black women seemed to have been the particular
targets of the alleged clinical trials. Dr McGown had
been conducting medical experiments on unsuspecting
and unwitting human participants and the Zimbabwean
Government had no option save to deport him to his
home country. These examples are clear testimonies
which demonstrate unethical behaviour and research
misconduct across the globe.
this directly in their editorial policies. On the other hand,
authors should routinely include information about
research funding in all papers they prepare for
publication. The role of the research funder as well as
the role of all parties contributing to the research and
publication, in designing the research, recruiting
investigators, collecting the data, analysing the data,
preparing the manuscript or controlling publication
decisions should be stated unless this is obvious from
the list of authors and contributors (Graf; Wager; Brown;
Scott-Litcter and Robinson, 2007). Other sources of
support for publications should also be clearly identified
in the manuscript usually in the acknowledgement
section
Defining Ethics
According to Magwa and Magwa (2015) authorship
credit should be based on the following; (i) substantial
contributions to conception and design or acquisition of
data, analysis or interpretation of data; (ii) drafting the
article or revising it critically for important intellectual
content and (iii) final approval of the version to be
published. Blackwell Publishers in the US for example,
recommend that editors should ask authors to submit a
short description of all contributions to their manuscript.
Each author‟s contribution should be described in brief.
Contributors who do not qualify as authors should be
listed and their contribution should be described in the
acknowledgements. Editors should always ask authors
to submit, as part of their initial submission package a
statement that all individuals listed as authors meet the
appropriate authorship criteria and that nobody who
qualifies for authorship has been omitted from the list.
The corresponding author should also indicate that
contributors and their funding sources have been
properly acknowledged and that authors and
contributors have approved the acknowledgement of
their contribution.
If an authorship dispute emerges after publication for
example, if somebody contacts the editor claiming they
should have been listed as author of a published paper
or requesting that their name be withdrawn from a
paper, Graf et al (2007) advise that the editor should
contact the corresponding author and where possible
the other authors to establish the veracity of the case.
When most people think of ethics or morals, they think
of rules for distinguishing between right and wrong
(Magwa and Magwa, 2015). The most common way of
defining ethics is to refer to it as norms of conduct that
distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable
behaviour. Ethics is a system or a set of rules or
standards governing the conduct of researchers carrying
out investigations. Chikoko and Mhloyi (1995) opine that
ethics has to do with respect for human rights since it
involves considerations such as fairness, honesty,
respect for the integrity and dignity of the individual and
confidentiality
of
certain
information.
Ethical
considerations and practices are therefore concerned
with the personal behaviour of the researcher. Collins et
al (2000:107) also define ethics as that which is morally
justifiable and has a lot to do with human rights. It is a
code of professional conduct that should guide
researchers as they engage in research. Research is a
discipline that needs to be governed by the code of
conducts thus ethics in one way or the other impacts on
all forms of research. Grix (2010) sums up the role of
ethics in research by saying that at a practical level it
deals with what ought to be done and what ought not to
be done. People‟s actions are considered right or wrong
basing on their intentions and whether the
consequences of their actions are good or bad.
Ethical Issues in Research and Publishing
1
(b) Authorship
(c) Protection from harm
Awareness of ethical considerations is crucial when
conducting research. The following ethical issues or
principles need to be considered by all authors intending
to publish works in research journals or academic
books:
(a) Transparency
Readers and the general public have a right to know
who funded a research project or the publication of a
document thus all sources of funding should be
disclosed. Both book and journal editors should state
1
Adapted from Magwa, S. & Magwa, W. (2015) A guide to
conducting research: a student handbook. New York:
Strategic Book Publishing and Rights Co.
Research participants should be seen as indispensable
and worth partners in research hence researchers
should recognise and ensure that respect, protection
and promotion of the right of participants are made
intrinsic at every stage and level of research undertaken
by them. Any research that is undertaken should not
adversely affect the physical, social or psychological
well-being of the participants (Chikoko and Mhloyi,
1995). The risks and benefits of the research to the
prospective participants must be fully considered. If
research is likely to lead to unnecessary physical harm
or mental distress then it should not be undertaken
(DuPlooy, 1995).
The investigator must protect the participants from
physical and mental discomfort, harm and danger that
230
may arise from such procedures (Borg and Gall, 1974).
If risks of such consequences exist, the investigator
should inform the participant of that fact. The participant
should be informed of procedures for contacting the
investigator within a reasonable time period following
participation in case stress, potential harm, or related
concerns arise. All research that exposes human
participants to possible harm according to Jesani and
Barai, 2004), must be designed to minimise risks and
must be approved by a research ethics committee
(REC) or an Institutional Review Board (IRB). It is
therefore advisable to consult your REC or IRB at the
earliest opportunity if the paper is meant for publication
(Wager, 2007).
Selection of those who will take part in the research
should be fair. Easy accessibility of the participants
alone does not constitute a fair criterion for their
inclusion in research. At the same time it should be
borne in mind that no particular group or groups should
be unfairly excluded from research, as that could well
exclude them from the social understanding of their
situation and can also unfairly exclude them from direct
or indirect benefits of research.
When selecting participants, the relevant social
cultural and historical background of the participants
should be taken into consideration and given
appropriate importance in the planning and conduct of
research (Magwa and Magwa, 2015). Researchers
should always exercise sensitivity when dealing with
objects or issues that might have cultural significance or
cause offence (e.g. photographs that depict naked
African women in European museums). Participants and
communities should not be exploited through research
and the time taken for data collection should not be
unnecessarily too long. Researchers should not coerce
or promise unrealistic benefits or inducement and
participants have the right to choose whether or not to
be part of a research project (Borg and Gall, 1974).
They have the right even to change their decision or
withdraw their informed consent given earlier at any
stage of research without assigning any reason.
(d) Informed Consent
The researcher should obtain the individual‟s consent
before gathering data on them (Borg and Gall, 1974;
DuPlooy, 1995). However, if the validity of research
results would be jeopardised by informing subjects
about the research the investigator may obtain implied
consent. To do this, a sample drawn from the population
to be studied is fully informed on every aspect of the
proposed research. If the individuals in the sample
agree by a large majority to be the subjects in the study,
the researcher can assume that other persons from the
same population would also agree. The researcher then
selects subjects from this population but does not seek
informed consent from the actual subjects. In health
sciences, collection of patient information for the
purposes of research normally requires explicit consent
from participants (Gutmann and Wager, 2011). RECs
should always scrutinise consent forms for research
proposals to ensure that the potential benefits and risks
of participating are clearly explained and the
participant‟s rights are protected.
Voluntary participation or informed consent from
individuals or communities is deemed important and
necessary in academic research. The greater the risk to
participants, the greater is the need for obtaining
informed consent. Consent for participation in research
is voluntary and informed only if it is given without any
direct or indirect coercion and inducement and is based
on adequate briefing given to the participants about the
details of the project (Winter, 2004). The briefing should
be given both verbally or in written form using a
language that the participants know and understand. In
Zimbabwe for example, it might not be possible to obtain
signed informed consent of all the participants but it is
however essential that the participants are furnished
with information giving adequate details of research
(Magwa and Magwa, 2015).
The verbal and written briefing of the participants in the
language they understand most should include the
following details (ibid):
(i) Purpose of research: The goal of research
should be presented in simple local language.
(ii) Identity of the researchers: Name and address
of researchers(s) and the institution(s) they
represent.
(iii) Identity of others associated with the research:
Name(s) and address of funder(s) or sponsor(s)
if any.
(iv) Why selected: Reasons or method for selecting
the particular locality, community and any other
setting, individuals or groups within that
community for participation, in the study.
(v) Harms and benefits: The possible, anticipated
and potential benefits or harms of research and
their participation.
(vi) Future use of information: The use of the
information or data obtained should be made
known to
participants.
(vii) Right not to participate: the participants should
be informed that they are free to object to and
refuse to allow the use of data gathering devices
such as cameras and tape recorders. They have
the right to decline participation outright without
penalty or undesirable consequences.
NB: In the case of research that involves children below
the age of fourteen years, informed consent should be
sought from the parents/guardians as well as the
children themselves. Where the parents/guardians
consent to participate and the children have declined,
the rights of the children should be respected.
(e) Confidentiality
The right whether to remain anonymous or to be
identified lies with the participant. It becomes more
important in research that deals with sensitive or
personal issues and information. Appropriate methods
should be devised to ensure privacy at the time of data
collection and the obligation to maintain privacy,
anonymity and confidentiality extends to the entire
research team, other researchers in the institution, the
231
administrative staff and all those not directly associated
with the research who may possibly have access to the
information (Wager, 2007; Grix, 2000; Bogdan and
Biklen, 1982). Researchers should maintain appropriate
anonymity and confidentiality of information in creating,
storing, accessing transferring and dispersing of records
under their control, whether these are written,
automated or in any other medium.
Once research data has been collected, the
researcher should make certain that nobody has access
to the data except himself/herself and possibly a few coinvestigators. Whenever possible, the names of
subjects/participants should be removed from data
collection instruments and responses should be
identified by way of codes (Ary et al, 1979; Bogdan and
Biklen, 1982; Jesani and Barai, 2004). The confidentially
of the individual must be further protected by not using
the names of individuals in any publications that result
from the research project.
It is generally agreed among social scientists that
subjects should be given assurances of confidentiality
by the researcher and that these assurances should be
rigidly adhered to. There is evidence that an absolute
assurance of confidentiality increases the number of
subjects willing to cooperate in research (Collins etal,
2000). This is especially true when sensitive topics such
as sexual intercourse or marijuana use are involved. To
secure confidentiality the researcher should ask subjects
to furnish information anonymously. This virtually
eliminates the possibility that an individual can be
consciously linked to any findings in the research report.
(f) Relationship with Other Researchers
Principal researchers are responsible for the ethical
conduct of research by all juniors, assistants, students
and trainees. At the same time juniors, assistants,
students and trainees have an equal responsibility for
ethical conduct and observance of ethical guidelines.
Principal researchers have a responsibility to provide
proper training and guidance regarding all aspects of
research, including ethical conduct (Gutmann and
Wagner, 2011). On the other hand, research assistants
have a right to receive good training and guidance.
The principal researchers should delegate to the
juniors only those responsibilities that they are
reasonably capable of performing on the basis of their
education, training or experience. No researcher should
impose views, or try to seek personal sexual or
economic gain from anybody including other
researchers, junior assistants, trainees and students
(Magwa and Magwa, 2015; DuPlooy, 19950. Principal
researchers should desist from coercing other
researchers especially juniors into serving as sources of
cheap labour. Members of the research team should be
cooperative, responsive, honest and respectful about
the interest, opinion/view capability and work of other
researchers, including the „so-called‟ juniors and
assistants.
While working in the teams on a research project, at
the outset, all members of the team have a right to know
and document all aspects of research including
ownership of the data (Jesani and Barai, 2004).
Students who are participating in a research project
should have the right to opt out of a research project
without having to face adverse consequences.
(g) Following Channels:
Institutions
Researchers
and
When working with institutions such as a school,
hospital or university, it is very important to follow
appropriate channels of authority. If the researcher plans
to use subjects from more than one school for example,
it is generally necessary first to obtain approval from the
Provincial Education Director (P.E.D) in the case of the
education sector. After obtaining such approval, the
researcher should visit each school concerned and
present his/her idea to the head of the school. The
interest and cooperation of all persons concerned with
the research is necessary if it is to be carried through to
a successful conclusion (Wager, 2007; White, 2004).
After the Provincial Education Director and the
School Head have been briefed about the purpose of
the research and the procedures to be followed, it will be
necessary for the researcher to meet with teachers in
the schools and obtain their interest and cooperation. It
may also be desirable that parents be informed about
the nature of the study and given an opportunity to
express their opinions. Magwa and Magwa (2015)
assert that this may often be done by having the
researcher present his/her plans at School Development
Association (SDA) meetings in the schools involved. It is
usually necessary for the researcher to prepare a letter
exposing the study and this letter should be sent home
to parents of all children who will participate as subjects
and should provide a place where the parent may sign
to signify approval of the child‟s participation in the
research.
It is not only necessary to establish good working
relationship before starting your research, but it is
equally important to maintain these relationships during
the time the research is being carried out (Winter, 2003).
A researcher who is regarded as a friend and colleague
has a much easier time than one who is regarded as an
outsider with unknown motives.
(h) Research Misconduct
This section provides an overview of research
misconduct including historical and contemporary
examples. Simply put, research misconduct can be
defined as plagiarism in reporting research results,
fabrication or falsification of data. The misconduct must
be committed intentionally and the allegation must also
be proven by sufficient evidence.
(i) Plagiarism
Many people think of plagiarism as copying
another person‟s work or borrowing someone
else‟s original ideas. But terms like „copying‟ and
„borrowing‟ can disguise the seriousness of the
offense. The dictionary definition of plagiarism
simply refers to it as theft of ideas or words of
another person and presents them as if they
were one‟s own production. It can also be
defined as use of another person‟s intellectual
232
property without crediting the source. In other
words, plagiarism is literary theft which qualifies
as an act of fraud since it involves both stealing
someone else‟s work and lying about it
afterwards. In academic writing and publishing,
it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or
any language from someone else without
adequately crediting that source in your paper
(White, 2003). It doesn‟t matter whether the
source is a published author, another student, a
website or any other person. Taking credit for
anyone else‟s work is stealing and it is
unacceptable in all academic situations whether
you do it intentionally or by accident. The
internet and word-processing software have
made it very simple to cut and paste words into
a
document
(Weindling,
2005).
This
unfortunately becomes plagiarism if you do not
acknowledge the originator and instead pass the
work off as your own.
Most cases of plagiarism however, can be
avoided
by
citing
sources.
Simply
acknowledging that certain material in your
article or book has been borrowed and providing
your audience with the information necessary to
find that source is usually enough to prevent
plagiarism. In order not to commit this academic
crime, authors must make an effort to
paraphrase using their own words all
information which they would have read. An
author should make sure that he/she does not
copy verbatim more than two words in a row
from the text being used. Citing of sources
should be done using styles such as American
Psychological Association (APA), Modern
Languages Association (MLA), Chicago, and
Harvard just to mention a few and when quoting
a source the author should use exactly the
words that appear in the original source. It is
also important to remember that no one wants
to be misquoted; hence quoting must be done
exactly and correctly to avoid plagiarism
allegations. Citing a quote is different from
paraphrasing a passage because the former
involves the addition of a page number or a
paragraph number in the case of web content. A
reference list of all sources cited at the end of
your research paper is one of the most
important ways to avoid plagiarism (Wager and
Middleton, 2007). This information is very
specific since it includes details about the
author(s), date of publication, title, and sources.
Authors are advised to use plagiarism checker
services such as WriteCheck or Turn-it-In to
assess paraphrasing and other anti-plagiarism
skills. Nowadays, most educational institutions
use a variety of plagiarism checker software to
check on research articles.
However, there are real consequences to be
faced when caught committing plagiarism. For
students in a college or university, getting
caught whilst committing this crime can result in
a failing grade for a paper, a project or even an
entire course (Wager, 2007). In extreme cases
universities have revoked degrees when
significant plagiarism is later detected in a thesis
or dissertation.
(ii) Data Fabrication
Making up data is never admissible in research
and publishing hence authors must face up to
the limitations of their study and also ensure that
their conclusions do not go beyond what the
data can support. White (2004) gives an
example of suspected data fabrication in a
paper that was submitted to the BMJ journal
after a reviewer noted that scores presented did
not match the participant‟s description. The
mean scores in that paper suggested
substantial impairment yet participants were
described as healthy. The author also claimed
that the participants (elderly patients) could
recall 50 digits in memory tests when in actual
fact they could remember only about 8 (ibid).
The article reviewer concluded that the data had
all the hallmarks of being entirely invented.
(iii) Data Falsification
Data falsification or misrepresentation refers to
unethical practice of adjusting data to suit a
researcher‟s
hypothesis.
This
is
as
unacceptable as making it up. It is very tempting
for authors to omit or exclude results that do not
fit (Wager, 2007; White, 2004; Winter, 2003)
Deliberate omission of unfavourable results
should therefore be considered research
misconduct.
(iv) Inaccurate Referencing
Citations are an important part of academic
writing and publishing so they should be
accurate. Errors in references may prevent
readers from locating a paper. Furthermore,
misrepresenting another author‟s views or
findings will also mislead readers. The
proportion of inaccurate quotations was 20% in
research reports in Biomedical journals for the
year 2007 (Wager and Middleton, 2007).
(v) Duplicate Submission
Journal editors expect authors to submit original
work that has not been previously published and
is not being considered by another journal.
Many journals require an explicit statement to
this effect in the cover letter by the author hence
authors cannot plead ignorance (Graf et al,
2007). If editors detect duplicate submission
(which sometimes happens when papers are
sent to the same reviewer) they may blacklist
authors and refuse to consider their articles for
publication. If authors are allowed to submit their
work to more than one journal at once, there is a
risk of publishing the same article several times
in different journals. If you discover that your
233
paper has been inadvertently been submitted to
more than one journal, please own up to your
error and withdraw the most recent submissions
so as to remain with only one.
Conclusion
Misconduct in research endangers public trust and the
pursuit of scientific truth hence research institutions
have an obligation to deal promptly with allegations of
research misconduct. It is an offence that damages not
only the reputation of those involved but also that of the
entire educational community. If editors suspect any
research misconduct (e.g. data fabrication, falsification
or plagiarism) they should ensure that this is properly
investigated by the appropriate authorities. Journal
editors in our view should ask authors to state that the
study whose findings are being submitted for publication
was approved by the relevant research ethics committee
or institutional review board. If human participants were
involved, an author‟s manuscript must be accompanied
by a statement that shows that the experiments were
undertaken with the understanding and appropriate
informed consent of each. Editors therefore have a right
to reject papers if there is doubt on whether appropriate
procedures would have been followed. They also have a
responsibility to publish „retractions‟ if work is proven to
be fraudulent. Finally, authors should always ensure that
they have written entirely original work and if they have
used works or words of others, these would have been
appropriately cited or quoted.
Magwa, S. & Magwa, W. (2015). A guide to conducting
research: A student handbook. Houston: Strategic Book
Publishing and Rights Co.
MOTO. (1996). Number 158. Gweru: Mambo Press.
Proctor, R. N. (1988). Racial hygiene: Medicine under the
Nazis. Cambridge: University Press.
Rogers, K. (2015). The quiet extinction: Stories of North
America’s rare and threatened plants. Arizona: The
University of Arizona Press.
Spitz, V. (2005). Doctors from hell. Boulder: Sentient Press.
Thomas, J. (2001). Invasion of the organ snatcher.
http://slate.msn.com/id/99841. Accessed on 14/08/16.
Wager, E. (2007). Ethical publishing: The innocent author‟s
guide to avoid misconduct. Menopause international.
Volume 13, No. 2, pp98-102.
Wager, E. & Middleton, P. 2007. Technical editing of research
reports in biomedical journals. Cochrane methodology
review. MR000002.
Weindling, P. 2005. Nazi medicine and the Nuremberg trials.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
White, C. 2004. Three journals raise doubts on validity of
Canadian studies. BMJ. Issue Number 328, pp67-73.
Winter, M. 2003. Research protocols grounded in ethics.
http://www.osp.cornell.educ/compliance/UCHS/homepage
UCHS.htm. Accessed on 10/08/16.
Websites
www.education.seattlepi.com/consequences-plagiarismcheating-1161.html. Accessed on 08/11/16.
www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834250.
Accessed
16/08/16.
on
References
Ary, D.; Jacobs, L. C. & Razavizk, B. (1979). Introduction to
research in education. New York: Rinchart & Winston Co.
Ltd.
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Borg, l. R. & Gall, M. D. (1974). Educational research: An
introduction. New York: David McKay Company.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2005. The
Tuskegee syphilis study: A hard lesson learned.
http//www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/Tuskegee/time.htm.
Accessed on 14/08/16.
Chikoko, V. & Mhloyi, G. (1995). Introduction to educational
research methods. Harare: University of Zimbabwe.
Collins, K. J.; DuPlooy, G. M.; Grobbelaar, M. M.; Puttergill, C.
H.; Terre Blande, M. J.; Van Rensburg, G. H. & Wigston,
D. T. (2000). Research in social sciences. Pretoria: UNISA.
DuPlooy, G. M. (1995). Introduction to communication
research. Kenwyn: Juta and Co. Ltd.
Graf, C.; Wager, E.; Bowman, A.; Scott-Litcter, D. & Robinson,
A. (2007). Best practice guidelines on publication ethics: A
publisher‟s perspective. International journal of clinical
practice. Volume 62, No. 152, pp1-26.
Grix, J. (2000). The foundations of research (2nd Edition). New
York: Pelgrave MacMillan.
Jesani, A. & Barai, T. (2004). Ethical guidelines for social
science research in health.
http://www.hsph.havard.educ/bioethics/guidelines/ethical.html.
Accessed on 14/10/16.
Gutmann, A. & Wagner, J. (2011). Moral science: Protecting
participants
in
human
subjects
research.
http://www.bioethics.gov Accessed 12/08/16.
234