Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of anonymous surveys asking scientists whether they ever committed various forms of plagiarism. From May to December 2011 we searched 35 bibliographic databases, five grey literature databases and hand searched nine journals for potentially relevant...
| Publicado en: | Science & Engineering Ethics Vol. 21; no. 5; pp. 1331 - 1353 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Oct2015
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=109419767&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 109419767 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 13533452 GNI jtl: Science & Engineering Ethics issn: 13533452 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Oct2015 vid: 21 iid: 5 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 109419767 10.1007/s11948-014-9600-6 ppf: 1331 ppct: 22 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 722KB tig: atl: Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys. aug: au: Pupovac, Vanja Fanelli, Daniele affil: Department of Medical informatics, School of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Brace Branchetta 20 51000 Rijeka Croatia EBSI - École de Bibliothéconomie et des Sciences de l'information, Université de Montréal, room c-2004, Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, 3150 rue Jean-Brillant Montréal H3C 3J7 Canada su: Plagiarism Scientists Falsification of data Periodicals Research sug: subj: Plagiarism Scientists Falsification of data Periodicals Research keyword: Data fabrication Data falsification Research integrity Research misconduct Survey methodology ab: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of anonymous surveys asking scientists whether they ever committed various forms of plagiarism. From May to December 2011 we searched 35 bibliographic databases, five grey literature databases and hand searched nine journals for potentially relevant studies. We included surveys that asked scientists if, in a given recall period, they had committed or knew of a colleague who committed plagiarism, and from each survey extracted the proportion of those who reported at least one case. Studies that focused on academic (i.e. student) plagiarism were excluded. Literature searches returned 12,460 titles from which 17 relevant survey studies were identified. Meta-analysis of studies reporting committed (N = 7) and witnessed (N = 11) plagiarism yielded a pooled estimate of, respectively, 1.7 % (95 % CI 1.2-2.4) and 30 % (95 % CI 17-46). Basic methodological factors, including sample size, year of survey, delivery method and whether survey questions were explicit rather than indirect made a significant difference on survey results. Even after controlling for these methodological factors, between-study differences in admission rates were significantly above those expected by sampling error alone and remained largely unexplained. Despite several limitations of the data and of this meta-analysis, we draw three robust conclusions: (1) The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is higher than for data fabrication and falsification; (2) The rate at which scientists report knowing a colleague who committed plagiarism is correlated to that of fabrication and falsification; (3) The rate at which scientists admit having committed either form of misconduct (i.e. fabrication, falsification and plagiarism) in surveys has declined over time. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Science & Engineering Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2015. All Rights Reserved. item: Science & Engineering Ethics holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2015 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|