Plagiarism is a serious, yet widespread type of research misconduct, and is often neglected in developing countries. Despite its far-reaching implications, plagiarism is poorly acknowledged and discussed in the academic setting, and insufficient evidence exists in Latin America and developing countries to inform the development of preventive strategies. In this context, we present a longitudinal case study of seven instances of plagiarism and cheating arising in four consecutive classes (2011–2014) of an Epidemiology Masters’ program in Lima, Peru, and describe the implementation and outcomes of a multifaceted, “zero-tolerance” policy aimed at introducing research integrity. Two cases involved cheating in graded assignments, and five cases correspond to plagiarism in the thesis protocol. Cases revealed poor awareness and high tolerance to plagiarism, poor academic performance, and widespread writing deficiencies, compensated with patchwriting and copy-pasting. Depending on the events’ severity, penalties included course failure (6/7) and separation from the program (3/7). Students at fault did not engage in further plagiarism. Between 2011 and 2013, the Masters’ program sequentially introduced a preventive policy consisting of: (i) intensified research integrity and scientific writing education, (ii) a stepwise, cumulative writing process; (iii) honor codes; (iv) active search for plagiarism in all academic products; and (v) a “zero tolerance” policy in response to documented cases. No cases were detected in 2014. In conclusion, plagiarism seems to be widespread in resource-limited settings and a greater response with educational and zero-tolerance components is needed to prevent it. / This study was funded by the training Grant 2D43 TW007393-06 awarded to the U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit No. 6 (NAMRU-6) by the Fogarty International Center of the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

One of the most overlooked and complex problems that universities and colleges face nation-wide is how to reduce and eliminate research misconduct. Because of the confidential nature of allegations of research misconduct and the high rate of underreporting, administrators at scholarly institutions struggle with understanding the cause of such behavior. Without a clear picture of the prevalence of misconduct or the barriers to reporting, leaders at institutions of higher learning find themselves at a disadvantage when dealing with these problems. This uncertainty coupled with a growing regulatory emphasis from federal funding agencies, results in a reactionary approach while questionable practices go unchecked. In the early 2000s, federal funding agencies began requiring colleges and universities to provide training in the responsible conduct of research prior to receiving funding. The Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training covers research misconduct (falsification of data, fabricating data, and plagiarism) as well as other topics related to research misbehaviors (mentoring, peer review, data management, authorship, etc). This emphasis on training, while well intended, has not had a significant impact on faculty and student knowledge about misconduct. Authentic Leadership Theory is based on Aristotle’s concept of authenticity and has gained attention over the last decade. It is comprised of four main components: Balanced processing, internalized moral perspective, relational transparency, and self-awareness. These types of leaders focus on moral standards and values and that is what guides his or her leadership. This study evaluates the impact authentic leaders have on shaping the ethical attitudes of faculty when they are placed in direct departmental supervisory positions. A survey of faculty from 15 Mississippi colleges and universities was conducted. Results indicate that the self-awareness and relational transparency constructs of authentic leadership influence faculty attitudes towards objective research integrity issues, but the direction of influence conflicts with each of the constructs. Additional variables failed to reach a level of significance suggesting that other variables, not historically associated with organizational leadership and research integrity, are influencing faculty’s ethical perceptions. Additional attention is focused on barriers to effective leadership caused by the compliance focused culture of institutions of higher learning.

Conferencia realizada en el marco de la "III Conferencia Latinoamericana de Analíticas de Aprendizaje LALA2020 Project", del 1 al 2 de Octubre de 2020 en Cuenca, Ecuador. / The aim of this paper is to investigate the perceptions of learning analytics re-searchers in Peru about the barriers to publication of their research data. A review of the relevant legislation was done. Semi-structured interviews were used as a research method, the focus being on the presumed conflict between the publica-tion of research data and the protection of personal data. The results show a range of individual factors that influence the behaviour of scientists in relation to the publication of research data, emphasizing the barriers related to data protection in different disciplines.

Submitted by Priscilla Araujo (priscilla@ibict.br) on 2017-08-28T17:50:17Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Damasio_Tese_IBICT_2017.pdf: 4347272 bytes, checksum: aac9089b91eb4fd2d792540f78444f88 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-08-28T17:50:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Damasio_Tese_IBICT_2017.pdf: 4347272 bytes, checksum: aac9089b91eb4fd2d792540f78444f88 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-03-14 / Mudanças no forma de comunicação entre os cientistas ocorreram ao longo dos últimos séculos, mas a publicação em periódicos especializados, já no século XX, tornou-se o formato padrão e central da ciência. Em paralelo ao aumento exponencial da produção em periódicos, observou-se também um aumento no número de casos de má conduta, o que levou a uma série de iniciativas mundiais para auxiliar a elaboração de politicas e a formação de especialistas no tema, também tratado de Integridade em Pesquisa. A despeito da literatura crescente neste tema, ainda há poucos estudos sobre a responsabilização dos diferentes atores, a saber, autores, revisores e editores, em casos de má conduta. Considerando a relevância do tema e a escassez de literatura específica, este estudo parte da seguinte questão: como os editores de revistas científicas, brasileiras e de outros países da América Latina, percebem as diferentes práticas de má conduta no processo editorial? Outras questões mais específicas também direcionaram o estudo: Em que momento do fluxo editorial são identificadas as más condutas? Quais os procedimentos das revistas? As revistas têm políticas editoriais específicas para lidar com a prevenção e detecção de más condutas? Como definem plágio e outras más condutas? Qual a familiaridade dos editores com práticas de má conduta? Qual a responsabilização de autores, revisores e editores? Para responder estas questões, o estudo, de natureza quanti-qualitativa, focou na população de editores de revistas científicas das maiores coleções da Plataforma SciELO, ou seja, Brasil, Argentina, Chile, Colômbia, Cuba e México. Um questionário online foi enviado para os 858 editores-chefes, dos quais 209 retornaram. A análise das respostas utilizou tratamento estatístico para descrever as variáveis extraídas das questões fechadas e também análise de conteúdo, segundo Bardin, das questões abertas. Um primeiro conjunto de resultados mostra que 80% dos editores brasileiros e latino americanos indicam que as más condutas raramente ou nunca ocorreram em suas revistas; o momento mais frequente de identificação das más condutas é na análise dos pareceristas e os procedimentos mais frequentes é de rejeitar o artigo. Também identificou-se que a maior parte das revistas participantes do estudo têm políticas específicas de prevenção, mas 36,6% das revistas brasileiras e 24,7% das latino americanas indicaram que não as possuem. Sobre a familiaridade com algumas práticas, o editores brasileiros e latino americanos são mais familiarizados com envio simultâneo de trabalhos, conflitos de interesse e plágio. Sobre o conhecimento sobre plágio, autoplágio e redundância, identificou-se que a maior parte dos editores apresenta a definição uma clássica para estas práticas, ou seja, demonstram conhecimento sobre um conceito do senso comum. Por fim, sobre as responsabilidades nas ocorrências de fabricação, falsificação e plágio, a maior parte dos editores aponta que os autores são totalmente responsáveis, enquanto outros, especialmente os editores latino-americanos, delegam aos revisores esta responsabilidade. O trabalho, que não é exaustivo, teve o objetivo de primeiramente adentrar em temática ainda não explorada e buscar uma melhor compreensão sobre a relação entre questões éticas da comunicação cientifica, o fluxo editorial e os editores, cujas informações, espera-se, possam servir de referência para pesquisas e estudos futuros. / The way scientists communicate has changed over the last few centuries; however publication in specialized journals has become the standard and central format of science since the twentieth century. Parallel to the exponential increase of journals production, there has also been an increase in the number of misconduct cases, which has led to a series of global initiatives to assist with both, policy development and the training of experts on this theme, which is also referred to as Integrity in Research. In spite of the growing literature on this subject, there are still few studies on the accountability of the different actors, that is, authors, reviewers and editors, in misconduct cases. Considering the relevance of such a theme and the scarcity of specific literature, this study starts with the following question: how do the editors of scientific journals from Brazil and other Latin American countries perceive the different misconduct practices in the editorial process? Other more specific questions also directed the present study: at what point in the editorial flow are the misconducts identified? What are the procedures of the magazines? Do magazines have specific editorial policies to deal with the prevention and detection of misconduct? How do they define plagiarism and other misconducts? What is the publishers' familiarity with misconduct practices? What is the responsibility of authors, reviewers and editors? In order to answer such questions, this quantitative qualitative study focused on the population of scientific journals editors of the largest collections of the SciELO Platform, that is, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Cuba and Mexico. An online questionnaire was sent to the 858 chief editors, of which 209 returned. A statistical analysis was carried out to describe the variables extracted from the closed questions, in addition to the content of the open questions, according to Bardin. A first set of the results shows that 80% of Brazilian and Latin American publishers indicate that misconduct has rarely or never occurred in their journal. The analysis of the reviewers is the most frequent moment for identifying the misconducts; rejecting the article is the most frequent procedure. It was also seen that most of the journals participating in the study have specific prevention policies; however 36.6% of the Brazilian journals and 24.7% of the Latin American ones said that they do not. Concerning familiarity with some practices, Brazilian and Latin American publishers are more familiar with the simultaneous submission of papers, conflicts of interest, and plagiarism as well. Considering knowledge on plagiarism, self-plagiarism and redundancy, it was seen that most of the editors have the classic definition for these practices, that is, they show knowledge about a common sense concept. Finally, regarding responsibility for Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism, most editors point out that the authors are fully responsible, whereas others, especially Latin American publishers, delegate this responsibility to the reviewers. This non-exhaustive study had as its main purpose to enter into a not yet explored topic, in addition to seek a better understanding on the relationship among the ethical issues of scientific communication, the editorial flow and the editors, whose information is expected to be used for further research and studies.

L’auteur qui appose son nom à une publication universitaire sera reconnu pour sa contribution à la recherche et devra également en assumer la responsabilité. Il existe divers types d’agencements pouvant être utilisés afin de nommer les auteurs et souligner l’ampleur de leur contribution à ladite recherche. Par exemple, les auteurs peuvent être nommés en ordre décroissant selon l’importance de leurs contributions, ce qui permet d’allouer davantage de mérite et de responsabilité aux premiers auteurs (à l’instar des sciences de la santé) ou bien les individus peuvent être nommés en ordre alphabétique, donnant une reconnaissance égale à tous (tel qu’on le note dans certains domaines des sciences sociales). On observe aussi des pratiques émergeant de certaines disciplines ou des champs de recherche (tel que la notion d’auteur correspondant, ou directeur de recherche nommé à la fin de la liste d’auteurs). En science de la santé, lorsque la recherche est de nature multidisciplinaire, il existe différentes normes et pratiques concernant la distribution et l’ordre de la signature savante, ce qui peut donner lieu à des désaccords, voire à des conflits au sein des équipes de recherche. Même si les chercheurs s’entendent pour dire que la signature savante devrait être distribué de façon ‘juste’, il n’y a pas de consensus sur ce que l’on qualifie de ‘juste’ dans le contexte des équipes de recherche multidisciplinaire. Dans cette thèse, nous proposons un cadre éthique pour la distribution juste de la signature savante dans les équipes multidisciplinaires en sciences de la santé. Nous présentons une critique de la documentation sur la distribution de la signature savante en recherche. Nous analysons les enjeux qui peuvent entraver ou compliquer une distribution juste de la signature savante tels que les déséquilibres de pouvoir, les conflits d’intérêts et la diversité de cultures disciplinaires. Nous constatons que les normes internationales sont trop vagues; par conséquent, elles n’aident pas les chercheurs à gérer la complexité des enjeux concernant la distribution de la signature savante. Cette limitation devient particulièrement importante en santé mondiale lorsque les chercheurs provenant de pays développés collaborent avec des chercheurs provenant de pays en voie de développement. Afin de créer un cadre conceptuel flexible en mesure de s’adapter à la diversité des types de recherche multidisciplinaire, nous proposons une approche influencée par le Contractualisme de T.M. Scanlon. Cette approche utilise le respect mutuel et la force normative de la raison comme fondation, afin de justifier l’application de principes éthiques. Nous avons ainsi développé quatre principes pour la distribution juste de la signature savante en recherche: le mérite, la juste reconnaissance, la transparence et la collégialité. Enfin, nous proposons un processus qui intègre une taxonomie basée sur la contribution, afin de délimiter les rôles de chacun dans le projet de recherche. Les contributions peuvent alors être mieux comparées et évaluées pour déterminer l’ordre de la signature savante dans les équipes de recherche multidisciplinaire en science de la santé. / Authorship of scientific publications is a means of recognizing both a researcher’s contribution to a paper as well as their responsibility for the integrity of their work. Various approaches to author order may be used to rank individuals and convey the extent of their contribution. For example, authors may be listed by decreasing level of contribution, whereby most credit and responsibility are allocated to the first authors (common in the health sciences), or they may be named in alphabetical order, giving equal recognition to all (common in the social sciences). There are also “rules of thumb” or preferred practices that exist in the respective disciplines or research fields (e.g., corresponding author first, Principal Investigator last). In the case of multidisciplinary health research, differing norms and practices regarding authorship distribution may be held by the respective team members; and, this can give rise to disagreement and even conflict within research teams. Although researchers and scholarly organizations agree that authorship should be distributed “fairly”, a shared understanding or consensus as to what constitutes fairness, as well as its practical implementation in multidisciplinary research collaborations, remains a significant challenge. This thesis proposes a conceptual ethical framework for the fair distribution of authorship in multidisciplinary health sciences research. At the outset, the various methods recommended by journals, learned societies, as well as in the academic literature to distribute authorship are critically reviewed; issues that may impede or complicate fair authorship distribution in multidisciplinary research are highlighted; these include, for example, power differentials, conflicts of interests, and conflicting disciplinary norms and cultures. The analysis will show that current universal normative authorship guidelines are overly broad, and therefore, are insufficient to effectively resolve many of the diverse issues that are often specific to differing contexts of research. As will be discussed, the limitations of such guidelines are particularly significant in the case of global health collaborations that involve researchers from low and middle income countries and those from high income countries. A theoretical approach influenced by T.M. Scanlon’s Contractualism is proposed as a means of achieving the flexibility needed for the diversity of multidisciplinary research contexts; mutual agreement and reasonability are used to determine whether ethical principles are “fair”. Four central and interconnected principles – desert, just recognition, transparency and collegiality – are presented as the conceptual foundation to support the development of a process for the fair distribution of authorship. This authorship distribution process integrates the detailed research tasks commonly used in “contributorship” taxonomies to delineate individual duties and roles in the research project and subsequent publication. Contributions are then compared and valued more efficiently to determine authorship order while promoting fairness in multidisciplinary health sciences research.