title: Ethical and moral issues in scientific research work type: Contributions from practice language: English published: 08 Feb 2022 updated: 08 Feb 2022 category: Pedagogika author: Mgr. Barbora Kolářová Introduction
In the submitted article, we address the issue of ethical and moral behaviour in the scientific research environment, which has become a highly topical issue in society today. Cases of unethical or ethically questionable behaviour have spread in our society, even among top political leaders in government, and therefore we consider it more than necessary to point out the boundaries that should not be ignored in scientific research activity. The aim is to analyse current issues related to morality and ethics within scientific research activity. In the introductory part we defined the concept of the ethics of scientific work, its importance and historical development. The next part is devoted to publication activity and also to the basic problems and borderline situations that most often occur during preparation of materials for publication. In the concluding part of the article we highlight the importance of observing ethical and moral principles, not only in scientific research activity, but also their significance for society as such.
BASIC CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
Definition of the ethics of scientific work
Ethics belongs to traditional philosophical disciplines, and its aim is the study of good, morality, moral behaviour and social norms. It is also often defined as a field that deals with proper conduct within human community. On this basis, we can say that the ethics of scientific work represents the expression of basic attitudes toward moral problems that may be encountered in scientific work. A methodological text usually informs about the most common manifestations of scientifically flawed or disputable conduct with respect to academic and scientific publishing. Its purpose is to increase researchers’ sensitivity to breaches of publication ethics and to contribute to the cultivation of the publishing environment. We assume that scientific work is fundamentally based on moral principles such as honesty, responsibility, reliability and truthfulness, which are generally valid for all academic disciplines and countries. From these principles, rules of proper scientific practice are further derived. These are defined and established mainly in official documents and ethical codes of scientific institutions and societies. (Knecht, P., Dvořák D., 2013, s. 556.)
The need for ethics in scientific research
The connection between ethics and science can be examined from various perspectives and in several areas. In our work, however, we focus on the area of moral aspects of scientific research, values and their interconnection. This is a form of so-called normative ethics whose function is to justify ethical rules of scientific research activity as such, from application of research methods, and through research management and team work to interpretation of research findings up to their publication. In this context, its goal is also to point out various manifestations of “dishonesty” in science. Since scientific research activity is also one of areas of human activity, it is clear that it is not immune to such practices. For this reason, the development of research ethics is highly important. Although society generally acknowledges moral principles such as honesty, truthfulness and responsibility, and their observance is considered self-evident, reality is different. Unfortunately, in ordinary life, and often almost as a norm, their violation is becoming commonplace, including in scientific research itself. (Plašienková, Z., 2020, s. 81) For this reason, it is not surprising that 21st-century society is linked to a crisis of values as well as to the abstinence of ethics and morality. Paradoxically, however, when introducing ethical or moral rules in various organizations, skepticism and reluctance often appear. Since ethics affects many areas, it is more than necessary to clearly define and identify values and moral principles within the academic environment. Equally important is the need to introduce ethics into academic institutions. We believe this would improve relationships and the environment within an academic organization and at the same time improve its positive reputation. The ethics code is currently the most common implementation tool; it should not be merely a formality but should be presented as a serious document that members of the organization will follow and also respect. ( Stecíková, E., Hrašková, J., 2013, s. 60 )
History of studying the link between science and ethics
The relationship between science and ethics was already a subject of study at least in the 17th century. In Europe, its development is associated with the rise of science and technology. These changes are also connected with how science is understood and perceived, with its significance and role in the academic environment as well as in society and in relation to the world as a whole. A relatively simplified view of science is a consequence of its paradigmatic understanding that dominated during the previous century. We can observe this mainly through the radical separation of subject from object of research, science from other areas of life, and also the separation of the researcher’s domain from his or her moral and value attitudes within the process of scientific research activity. These tendencies ultimately led to the now well-known interpretation of science and scientific research as value-neutral. For this reason, it is clear that the need to abandon old paradigmatic frameworks of understanding science and, at the same time, the need to revisit the relationship between science and ethics is urgently necessary today. The change in the status of science, associated with a new conception of scientific knowledge, is currently linked to its connection with society, and their relationship is reciprocal, i.e. science is a motor of societal development, but this also applies in reverse, as society influences the necessity of studying specific scientific areas through its needs. (Plašienková, Z.,2020, s. 8.) Development in this area therefore continues continuously and is directly linked to the problems that trouble the whole society every day.
PUBLICATION ACTIVITY AND BASIC UNETHICAL AND ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES IN PUBLISHING
Authorship in scientific work
Authorship of scientific papers is usually evaluated in reputable scientific journals based on the following criteria:
- The author has a substantial share in developing the concept, designing the study, collecting data, analysing it and interpreting the identified findings
- The author is substantially involved in checking preparation of the manuscript or article text
- The author is involved in assessing and approving the version that is subsequently submitted for publication
These three conditions form the so-called conditio sine qua non (“necessary condition, indispensable prerequisite,” as referenced) and must be fulfilled by every author. If this is not the case, the names of collaborators are given in acknowledgements. Some professional journals require a signed statement that all data in the article are true and that neither the article nor any part of it has been published before in another journal or periodical. The author therefore assumes full responsibility for the findings and information published in the article or publication. It is also true that some scientific institutions recognise so-called institutional or local traditions in determining co-authorship. In practice, this means that the head of a unit or department is automatically listed as a co-author of the article because they are the guarantor of the scholarly quality of the article. Such practice is accepted because the head is responsible for the professional development of less experienced colleagues and is accountable for the quality of the research results presented for publication. It should be added, however, that in Slovakia we do not have clearly established and unambiguous rules for recognising authorship. As already stated, regardless of the number of authors, each one is responsible not only for the work but also for associated problems such as plagiarism, inadequate research quality, and so on. (Novotný, J., 2005, s. 59).
UNETHICAL AND ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES IN CURRENT PUBLISHING
Fabrication and distortion/falsification of research findings
If we assume that scientific progress is possible only with the help of true and precise scientific knowledge, it is clear that one of the most serious violations in the ethics of scientific work is publishing data, conclusions and findings that were not obtained through serious research. In practice, the uncovering of invented studies occurs fairly often, especially in medicine or natural sciences. For example, this may happen because the workplace does not have the required equipment or employees confirm that collection of certain data did not occur. Compared with the preceding issue, detecting data falsification may be more problematic and demanding. Into data falsification we include any manipulation of data, images, tools, evidence, findings, or their replacement, distortion, or deliberate concealment. Such conduct is not easy to prove. Unless a scientist is caught in the act (e.g. recorded on video), it remains only speculative. It is a fact that unethical publishing practices can discredit even potentially useful scientific methods and approaches. If scientific data are too perfect or too unusual, they may become targets of skepticism. This can be prevented by proper handling of data (transparent collection, storage, analysis, description and interpretation of data). (Knecht, P., Dvořák D., 2013, s. 561).
Plagiarism
In cases of plagiarism, it is about unauthorized use of others’ published and unpublished ideas, concepts, formulations, knowledge and findings related to scientific or creative work, and also tables, illustrations, etc., without indicating sources. Among the most serious forms is submitting a complete work signed by new authors, sometimes in verbatim wording or as a translation into another language. The author is obliged to list all sources used in preparing the work. If the author intends to use a large amount of another person’s writing or graphical documentation, permission from the original author must be obtained. (Novotný, J., 2005, s. 60). Paraphrasing may also be considered plagiarism in cases where the text is rephrased in one’s own words but without mentioning the original information source. Creating plagiarism does not always have to be intentional; it may be linked to low awareness of publication ethics among authors. In general, literal text must be in quotation marks and paraphrased text does not need to be; in both cases, the source of information must be given and traceable, preferably with the original page number. A specific form of plagiarism is also the appropriation of an interpretative or argumentative line from a foreign source and placing it in a local context. In this case it is often very difficult to find the original source. Detection of this type is usually random and occurs most often when the text reaches an experienced, well-versed or meticulous reviewer. Plagiarism is also linked with the issue of non-creative compiling. The results of such unethical conduct can be seen in review monographs published under prestigious publishers. Non-creative compilations are not useful for scientific inquiry because the author replaces their own inability to create by assembling results of others. Mechanically processed compilations merely report what others have already produced on the topic, while the author’s creative contribution is minimal or nonexistent. A high-quality, acceptable compilation is a deliberate synthesis of different views on a certain topic, grounded in systematic structuring that is not the result of non-creative activity. (Knecht, P., Dvořák D., 2013, s. 562).
Assigning honorary co-authors
In a final publication form, the order of authors should reflect their contribution to team leadership and work on the article. Since we already provided more detailed information above on co-authorship, we would like to focus more on its relation to scientific ethics. Assigned co-authorship (angl. gift authorship) also belongs to unethical publishing practices. It is a situation in which one or more persons are added for any reason to real authors without being involved in preparing the publication, results, etc. In some cases, co-authorship is given for reciprocal reasons—that is, an author names a colleague formally as a co-author with the intention of expecting similar courtesy in return. We also distinguish so-called honorary authorship, where authorship is attributed to a head of workplace or supervisor out of politeness or courtesy without a real contribution to preparation. At the same time, it is not ethically correct if a doctoral student does not list as co-author a supervisor who contributed substantially to the final form of the text. This is especially true for research and publications that would have been unpublishable without significant substantive, conceptual and drafting input from the supervisor. It is not, however, necessary to list as co-authors, for example, people who participated in distributing questionnaires or who administratively or statistically processed the final data. Likewise, authors of diploma theses whose results were used by a thesis supervisor as raw material for an original manuscript are not co-authors when the diploma thesis author did not contribute to the latter. (Knecht, P., Dvořák D., 2013, s. 563).
Redundant/duplicate publication
Redundant or duplicate publication is the publication of a text or its parts, conclusions, methods, etc., in multiple journals. Editorial offices usually reject such submissions. The aim of authors of such texts is to increase the number of publications without regard to quality. Editorial offices prevent this by requiring authors to submit a signed declaration that the work has not yet been published in the submitted form and has not been sent to another editorial office for publication. If substantial parts of the text are identical, the author must submit all previously published versions to the editor for review. The editor then decides whether to include or reject the text for publication. If these materials are not provided, the text is published and only later it may become evident that it is duplicate; this information is then disclosed in a later issue, with or without a statement from the involved author. In cases concerning specific research areas such as medicines, vaccines or diseases, information must be published as quickly as possible in the public interest. (Novotný, J., 2005, 62 s).
Dividing one publication into several papers
The division of a publication, article or scholarly text that could have been published as a whole into several shorter research studies is called salami slicing in English. These types of publications share a common aim, research question, research sample and data-collection methods, although they describe different parts of the results of the same research. It is clear that orientation toward quantitative performance indicators leads to publication of shorter and still insufficiently mature scientific results. If it is necessary to publish preliminary findings, it is important to point this out, justify it appropriately and finally refer to all related studies. The consequence of this unethical conduct is not only the disadvantage and slowing of authors’ career growth but also the impairment of scientific community functioning. (Knecht, P., Dvořák D., 2013, s. 564).
Recycling one’s own texts
Reproducing or modifying parts of one’s own text in various articles and republishing them without proper designation through citation or relevant reference to an already published source may, from the perspective of publication ethics, be considered questionable. In general, it is necessary to cite everything that has been published before, and authors should also cite their own texts. A certain number of self-citations is considered normal, as authors are usually legitimately referring to their previous publications within the same thematic focus. (Knecht, P., Dvořák D., 2013, s. 564).
Mutual citation among related colleagues
The quality of a publication is usually assessed based on its citation in scholarly texts. For this reason, it is useful to distinguish the qualitative value of individual citations. As researchers, we should especially value those that challenge or develop our theoretical assumptions, methods used, or interpretations of results. A higher number of citations can be achieved by joining a “citation fraternity,” where reciprocal favors are arranged in advance at national or even international level. Despite this method being one of the commonly used unethical practices, it is almost impossible in practice to encounter alerts of this in scientific journals and texts. In such cases, it is extremely difficult to prove that reciprocal citation is purposive, so this issue is discussed mainly in general, for example on internet forums and social networks. (Knecht, P., Dvořák D., 2013, s. 565).
Distorted citation
The integrity of scientific work can also be disrupted by distortion, misinterpretation or deliberate extraction of a citation from its original context. The meaning and ideas of the original work can only be preserved through correct and content-accurate citation of literal or paraphrased text passages. If not, ideas and statements are attributed to the author that are not actually his or hers, which subsequently leads to serious distortion of the text. When drawing from secondary sources without familiarity with the original, distortion of meaning may become even more severe. Citing sources without authors having become acquainted with them in depth may be considered unethical unless the citation indicates it was used as a secondary source. Some authors in such cases also refer to this as citation plagiarism. (Knecht, P., Dvořák D., 2013, s. 566).
Undisclosed conflict of interest
Disclosure of conflicts of interest can be counted among the core principles of publication ethics. To preserve transparency from the publisher’s side, authors are often required to provide declarations of potential conflicts of interest. Objective aspects of research findings are most often influenced by financial and other factors. A conflict of interest can also be declared in other ways, for example through funding of research, employment of researchers, or private financial interests of researchers. In practice, however, we encounter many problematic situations: e.g., conflict between the requirement of researcher impartiality and their economic interests, personal relation to the research client, and so on. It is not possible in this context to predict in advance whether such conduct is unethical, yet it is important that editors and readers are informed about every potential conflict of interest, even when we are convinced that no conflict occurred or is occurring. (Knecht, P., Dvořák D., 2013, s. 567).
Violation of property copyright
It is an unquestionable fact that the main motive of scientific research is the dissemination of original ideas, discoveries and innovations. The environment in which major scientific publishers publish is however gradually approaching industrial production. If they decide to publish a manuscript, this is usually conditioned by signing a contract in which the author relinquishes copyright in favour of the publisher, especially for those with international impact. Once obtained, the manuscript is then traded like any other commodity. Access to individual journals or articles and even rights to translations are subjects of sale. Publishers therefore regard profit as a guarantee for development of the entire sector. For authors, this implies the obligation when publishing their own or others’ works, or even only some part of it (e.g., an image, diagram, model, etc.), to have not only proper source attribution but also permission from rights holders. Copyright is only exceptionally offered free of charge, mainly to original authors of source manuscripts. (Knecht, P., Dvořák D., 2013, s. 567).
Scientific publication and its review
It is part of good practice that every published work should be peer-reviewed before publication, and this should be unbiased and objective. Data submitted by the author are automatically considered confidential. If any shortcomings or errors are found, they must be promptly corrected and a corrected version published. In the case of ethical breaches, the publisher should first contact the author or authors in writing and later also the institution’s management. In clinical research, it is necessary that author guidelines include the requirement to obtain informed consent from all those included in the study. All research participants have a right to privacy. A key rule is that patient privacy must not be violated without written informed consent. For this reason, it is not possible to include patient identifying data in tables, graphs, photographs, diagrams, and so on. The only exceptions are situations where this information has essential significance for the research and the patient or legal guardian provides special informed consent for publication of these data. (Novotný, J., 2005, s. 65)
The importance of observing publication ethics
We believe that in practice most ethical violations do not arise intentionally but are the result of difficulty in applying generally valid ethical principles in certain specific cases. These are situations where researchers are unsure of the correct procedure. For this reason, it is necessary to continuously return to this issue, discuss disputable cases, and thus increase the sensitivity of the professional community to ethical questions. Better decision-making in crisis situations can also be supported by deeper understanding not only of one’s own principles but also of the values these principles are meant to protect. Ethical principles are important to follow because they protect other researchers, the whole of society and, not least, ourselves:
- Other researchers, in carrying out studies, build on our published results. If they spend time studying distorted publications, time and resources are wasted for colleagues who work with our results and try to deepen and develop them. In cases of deliberate distortion of quality or quantity of reported results, this is the appropriation of resources and prestige at the expense of those who did not engage in such ethical breaches. In plagiarism, this is an even more serious issue because it involves direct harm to colleagues’ rights whose results were described.
- Research outcomes in some areas can be significant, with consequences felt by society as a whole. For this reason, incorrect or incomplete results can have direct consequences, for example through implementation of wrong practices or misallocation of public funds used to support ineffective reforms.
- Not least, unethical conduct also endangers us by risking exclusion from grant access, loss of employment, and harm to reputation, thereby preventing further academic career progression.
This issue is directly related to the researcher’s responsibility when they suspect that a colleague or collaborator is not adhering to ethical principles. Under certain circumstances, one can become an accomplice, even when one remains silent and does not verify suspicion of suspicious conduct. In such cases, hierarchical categorisation of scientific ethical breaches is useful. In methodological literature, they are divided into: a) Gross violations of scientific ethics (angl. scientific misconduct) – this includes especially fabrication or distortion of data (fabrication, falsification), as publication of such data directly endangers society. Plagiarism can also be included here, since it directly infringes the rights of a scientist/member of the scientific community. In some cases this category may also include false attribution of co-authorship or duplicate publishing, which similarly misinform the scientific community. Gross violation of ethical principles may also arise during preparation of a research project, or through deliberate misjudgement of another project or research result, and b) Questionable research practices (angl. *questionable research practices) – into this category we can place less serious breaches of scientific ethical rules. For example, publishing the results of one study in two or more articles to record more publication activity. In this case, although the articles contain original and truthful information, distortion of scientific performance has nonetheless occurred. (Knecht, P., Dvořák D., 2013, s. 558)
There are many reasons why it is necessary to observe ethical and moral principles in research. First of all, it must be stated that rules and norms help contribute to research goals. Rejecting unethical and amorous conduct supports publication of truthful results and error-free data. Because research is a team effort requiring coordination of many workers from different disciplines and organisations, moral values and principles are the basis of mutual trust and respect, without which research is impossible. Ethical norms also ensure that research workers are responsible for the quality of their work, and for violations they may be properly sanctioned. Equally significant is the fact that respecting ethical principles contributes to building public support for research. It is likely that people will be more willing to personally support a project that demonstrates not only quality but also integrity. In some cases, any unethical or ethically questionable conduct within scientific research activity can have far-reaching consequences. (David B., Resnik, J. D., 2020)
Conclusion
Ethics, as a science, has a broad scope; therefore we decided that the aim of the article would be to analyse ethical and moral problems in scientific research work. This is a very topical issue with a very wide impact on the public. First, we defined the concepts of the ethics of scientific work and morality. We also explained why it is useful and important to consistently study the connection of ethics and morality with research. We found that, as one of human activities, it is not immune to unfair practices. We then continued with a description of the historical development of the connection between science and ethics, which began already in the 17th century and continues to this day. We then focused on publication activity, especially unethical and amorous practices associated with it. We began with the problem of recognizing authorship and then analysed the most common and most frequently used ethically questionable or unethical practices. In the end, we also addressed the importance of observing ethical principles and their influence, not only on the affected individual but also on society as a whole.
Author: Mgr. Barbora Kolářová
List of references
Knecht, P., Dvořák D.: Etika vědecké práce a publikování pro mírně pokročilé. Pedagogická orientace, 2013, roč. 23, č. 4, 554–578 s.
Plašienková, Z.: Etika a veda: Poznámky k niektorým morálnym aspektom vedeckého výskumu. 2020,79-89. s [online] [cit. 26.6.2021]. Available at: http://veshod.sk/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/etika_a_veda-plasienkova.pdf
Stecíková, E., Hrašková, J., Inštitucionalizácia a riadenie etiky v akademickej inštitúcii. 2013, 239-249 s. [online] [cit. 26.6.2021]. Available at: http://www.cutn.sk/Library/proceedings/mch_2013/editovane_prispevky/27.%20Stec%C3%ADkov%C3%A1_Hra%C5%A1kov%C3%A1.pdf
Novotný, J.: Etika a autorstvo vo vedeckých publikáciách. 2005, 59-65. s. ISSN 1212-4117. [online] [cit. 26.6.2021]. Available at: https://kont.zsf.jcu.cz/pdfs/knt/2005/01/12.pdf
David B., Resnik, J. D.: What is Ethics in Research & Why is it important?, 2020, [online] [cit. 26.6.2021]. Available at: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm?links=false