Introduction

Ethical behavior is not tied only to the theory and practice of a given profession, but is also very closely related to the academic environment. The creation of any written text, whether it is a monograph, teaching text, scientific study, conference paper, or final thesis, is a demanding intellectual process that requires a great deal of time, effort, and concentration from the author.

Through final theses, students demonstrate to the supervisor, the opponent, the members of the state examination committee, and also to themselves that they are capable of producing a coherent professional text. Successful defense of the final thesis is also one of the conditions for obtaining a university degree and entering professional practice.

Publication Ethics

As J. Průcha (2011) points out, ethical principles should be respected by everyone who conducts research - whether a student, doctoral student, or researcher - and at every stage of the research - in its preparation, implementation, and publication.

It is precisely publication ethics that is connected with the final stage of research. It can be summarized as the moral duty of the author of a written text to cite in it all works that were studied while writing it, or from which direct material was drawn. The author is also obliged to clearly distinguish in the text between their own ideas and those of other authors, in the form of citations (a verbatim passage taken from another author) and paraphrases (a free rendering of another author's ideas, which may, however, lead to misinterpretations and inaccuracies in the original ideas), and to list all sources at the end of the work in the bibliography.

Czech authors P. Knecht and D. Dvořák (2013, cf. pp. 558-559) also considered the question of why publication ethics should be observed. If we transfer these reasons to the field of student final theses, we can include among them:

  • other researchers may build on the results of final theses - distorted results lead to a waste of their time and resources when trying to replicate or develop them further. If the author commits plagiarism, their actions directly harm the rights of others,
  • the results of research in pedagogy and andragogy (including in final theses) may have an impact on theory and practice, because, among other things, they also present recommendations for practice. Incorrect or incomplete results of surveys and research that were introduced into practice could lead to its harm,
  • by failing to observe ethical standards in their work, the author also puts themselves at risk - they risk proceedings before an ethics committee or another body of their Alma mater, whose conclusions may vary (being barred from state examinations, failing the final thesis defense, being required to completely rework it, or expulsion from studies), which will certainly also damage their good reputation.

In the academic environment, but also in evaluations of research papers, we may encounter terms such as plagiarism or compilation. But what is the difference between them? Plagiarism can be characterized as the act of taking texts (words, ideas, but also tables, images, graphs,...) from other authors and passing them off as one's own without citing the sources, thereby violating copyright. Such writing is also sometimes called by keyboard shortcuts as CtrlC - CtrlV writing, that is, simply copying and pasting text. In contrast, a compilation is a text created by assembling ideas from other works, with the author of the compilation clearly and correctly referring in their work to the sources used. However, as D. Meško et al. (2005) note, the term compilation does not always have only a negative connotation. Simple uncreative compilation is distinguished from creative compilation, in which the author arrives at their own conclusions and positions in the text.

A Few Recommendations for Creating Final Theses

Based on methodological literature, as well as on our previous experience with the creation of professional texts, we formulate several recommendations for writing final theses.

P. Knecht and D. Dvořák (2013) published an inspiring study concerning publishing for the moderately advanced. The study includes the so-called Ten Publishing Sins of the Researcher. Among serious violations of publication ethics, the authors include invention and falsification of data, plagiarism, assigning coauthors, duplicate/simultaneous publication, and among questionable scientific practices they list splitting publications into multiple articles, recycling texts, mutual (reciprocal) citation among related colleagues, distorted citation, undisclosed conflict of interest, and violation of proprietary copyright.

Since this is a study focused on publishing for the moderately advanced, not all of these sins can be encountered in the creation of student final theses. Some of them, however, can undoubtedly be applied to this area as well. Inspired by the above authors, we select six sins supplemented by our own comments.

  1. Inventing and distorting/falsifying data - this sin can be considered the most serious. Invented research is detected quite often - for example, the workplace where the research was carried out does not have the stated equipment, or the institution or respondents confirm that data collection took place on a smaller research sample, or did not take place at all (Knecht - Dvořák, 2013). In our opinion, this situation can be prevented by a supervisor's requirement for confirmation of the field research implementation, which may or may not be attached to the appendices of the final thesis itself. Another way is to ask the student to provide the supervisor with raw data in the form of audio materials, transcripts, or questionnaires.
  2. Plagiarism - this is a gross violation of publication ethics, the arbitrary taking and use of other people's ideas and passing them off as one's own. Plagiarism can be considered theft of intellectual property. Some students use the ideas of their supervisors or other teachers, which were expressed in lectures or seminars. In this case too, the sources and authors must be properly cited (Knecht - Dvořák, 2013). Such sources can be cited in the bibliography, for example, as "unpublished lectures". From our own experience, we can state that already after reading the first outline of the final thesis, the supervisor can see what kind of writing style is native to the student. The fact is that supervisors formulate final thesis topics in areas in which they themselves are professionally active. They have therefore studied the literature and know it well themselves. If the supervisor has doubts about the authorship of a text that the student presents as their own, there is, in today's internet age, even before the student uploads their work to the Central Register of Final Theses, an easy way to verify it. Often it is enough to enter part of the text into an internet search engine, which can safely reveal plagiarism. A specific form of cheating is when the work is not your own. It is well known that in Slovakia there have for several years been companies offering to prepare texts for final theses, presenting them as "materials". In addition to the fact that such a service is relatively expensive, the truth is that there is again a high probability that, based on the fact that your supervisor (in class as well as during consultations) will recognize you, you will be exposed. The same applies if a friend or relative "helps" you with writing the final thesis. In addition to the fact that such a method of creation is unethical, you are also depriving yourself of the good feeling that the work you are now holding in your hands, bound in hardback, is only your own work, and that your bachelor's or master's degree is the result only of your own effort. Of course, others may help you when writing final theses - but let them remain at most in the role of advisers, data collectors, statisticians, or language proofreaders (however, we hold the view that it is appropriate to list the names of these "helpers" at least in the Acknowledgements section of the final thesis). Moreover, "...it is necessary to distinguish so-called auxiliary activity from joint creative activity... This activity in itself does not normally show the characteristics of creative activity and does not establish a claim to coauthorship." (Knecht - Dvořák, 2013, pp. 564-565). These persons therefore are not coauthors of your final thesis, which does not apply to the supervisor of the final thesis. Here, on the contrary, "coauthorship is undoubtedly involved, because the topic was assigned by the supervisor, the outline, goals, methodology were approved, the processing of individual parts was assessed, and the completion and conclusions were approved. This means that it entitles both of them to independently publish parts of, or the whole work, as coauthor." (Višňovský - Brincková - Zólyomiová, 2013, p. 143)
  3. Recycling one's own texts - this sin is particularly relevant when the author reproduces their own texts in various articles, thereby republishing them without marking them with self-citations or another relevant reference. (Knecht - Dvořák, 2013). Refer to every own idea or text that you have ever written somewhere else - for example in a bachelor's thesis. Otherwise, such behavior gives the impression that you wrote the text for the first time, when in fact you merely recycled it, that is, used it again in another work. "A certain number of self-citations is normal, because authors usually legitimately refer to some of their earlier works (self-citations usually account for less than 30% of items in the bibliography)." (Hořejší, 2000, in Krecht - Dvořák, 2013, p. 568). It should, however, be noted that self-citations are not counted among citations.
  4. Mutual citation of related colleagues - this sin has a different meaning in scientific works, so in the creation of final theses we would rather speak of the sin of citing only local authorities. It is natural that in their final theses students primarily cite university teachers from their Alma mater, from their own academic schools where they come from, teachers whom they met regularly over several years in class and whose publications and professional works they know best. We are nevertheless convinced that in final theses, where, among other things, you are to demonstrate your ability to work with relevant literature, it is never a bad idea to also draw on specialist literature by authors from other university workplaces in your field, which will certainly broaden your perspective on the research topic.
  5. Distorted citation - only correct and content-accurate reproduction of texts allows the core ideas and meaning of the original work to be preserved and further worked with (Knecht - Dvořák, 2013). Otherwise, authors you cite are attributed statements they never made, which naturally leads to distortion. We need not remind you that tertiary citations (source, in source, in source) are unacceptable.
  6. Undisclosed conflict of interest - in the case of final theses, this is usually not about economic interests, but a situation may arise in which the student as researcher will not be sufficiently impartial, for example because they already know their respondents personally for a long time or have a closer relationship with them, or perhaps know the director of the institution or facility and therefore do not want to cast the institution or facility in a negative light through negative research results. In such an environment, we would not recommend conducting a survey or research because of possible lack of objectivity.

If we were to summarize the listed offenses, among our Three Golden Rules of Final Thesis Writing we would include:

  • do not cheat - it is unethical and does not pay off,
  • cite all sources from which the author draws correctly,
  • use primary sources - if you want to use in your work an idea of another author whom the author of the text you have in hand cites, try to draw directly from that author's ideas - from the primary source. This is not always possible, especially if the secondary citation comes from an old source or from a source that is hard to access. Keep in mind, however, that even the author who paraphrased the idea adapted it, which may lead to inaccuracies and misinterpretations. On the internet you will often also find suitable sources that can be used in your work. There are many collections, studies, and papers that are available only online. What is important, however, is that they are reputable, that is, trustworthy and scholarly sources.

A final thesis, whatever its type, should not be merely a collection of citations and paraphrases by other authors. In our opinion, the purpose of a final thesis is not for you to create new theories in the form of definitions or classifications, but to demonstrate that you can work with scholarly literature - to find common and different elements in the ideas of others and to express your own positions, thereby showing your ability to produce scholarly texts (so-called creative compilation, which we wrote about). Do not be afraid of it.

From our own experience, we know a situation that we would call "text saturation". If you regularly and for a long time create some text, it can absorb you so much that you stop perceiving the linguistic and content side. In that case, we recommend setting the text aside for at least a day and reading it again later. This will create space for corrections to the final version before you submit it to the supervisor or upload it into the electronic system.

Another note that we would like to mention from our own experience is that the personality of the author (researcher) naturally develops. It is okay if, after some time, when reading your own texts, you do not agree with what you wrote several years ago, for example in a bachelor's thesis, and now, when writing the master's thesis, you would formulate your ideas differently, or perhaps not formulate them at all. This is not because you were wrong then, quite the opposite - it shows that compared with the past you now have deeper knowledge and broader perspective in your own field, which can of course be regarded as a positive.

And the last note concerns the language of the work. A frequently discussed question is how to express oneself in a final thesis - in the singular or plural? It is recommended to use the so-called modest plural (in some sources you may also encounter the designation authorial or scientific plural), that is, the first person plural (we believe, we are convinced, etc.). This form is recommended for students and beginning authors. Using the first person singular (I believe, I am convinced, etc.) is suitable for more experienced authors who represent a certain scientific authority. (Gonda, 2001 in Višňovský - Brincková - Zólyomiová, 2013)

Conclusion

Every scientific research, regardless of the purpose for which it is conducted, is an interesting journey of discovering reality. It is, however, very important that scientific inquiry in all its stages, including the publication stage, be carried out with due regard to ethical aspects; otherwise it loses its meaning. The author wishes all students much inspiration and joy in creating their final thesis.

The contribution is an output of project no. V/6/2016 entitled Ethics in Andragogical Theory and Practice of the University Grant Agency of Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra.

Author: PhDr. Dominika Kadlubeková, PhD.
The author belongs to the youngest generation of Slovak andragogues. Since the 2015/2016 academic year, she has been working as an assistant professor at the Department of Pedagogy of the Faculty of Education of Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra. She focuses mainly on the education of prisoners and persons released from imprisonment and probation, professional andragogy and personnel management, methodology of adult education, and methodology of andragogical research. In 2015, she published her first monograph entitled Penitentiary and Post-Penitentiary Education of Adults.

Bibliographic References

KNECHT, Petr – DVOŘÁK, Dominik. 2013. Etika vědecké práce a publikování pro mírně pokročilé. In Pedagogická orientace, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 554-578. [cit. 2016-09-05]. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2013-4-554

MEŠKO, Dušan et al. 2005. Akademická príručka. 2nd, revised and expanded edition. Martin : Osveta, 2005. 500 pp. ISBN 8080632006.

PRŮCHA, Jan. 2011. Etické principy v pedagogickém výzkumu. In SKUTIL, M. et al. Základy pedagogicko-psychologického výzkumu pro studenty učitelství. Prague : Portál, 2011, pp. 23-44. ISBN 9788073677787.

VIŠŇOVSKÝ, Ľudovít – BRINCKOVÁ, Jaroslava – ZOLYOMIOVÁ, Patrícia. 2013. Pedagogická metodológia a jej využitie pri tvorbe záverečných prác. Banská Bystrica : Belianum, 2013. 198 pp. ISBN 9788055705330.