Plagiarism, fraud and academic ethics€¦ · • 725,000 students are currently involved in doctoral programmes in Europe. That's 240,000 a year. Thus, teaching ethics and integrity

Plagiarism, fraud and academic ethics: what tools and bodies to set up?

Pierre-Jean BenghoziObservatoire de Paris, April 2018

Pierre-Jean.Benghozi@polytechnique.edu

The New research framework Perception of plagiarism and responses to it Which institutional resolution framework ?

Summary

A NEW RESEARCHFRAMEWORK

The research framework today

• A knowledge base society and economy• Collective and partnership dimensionA political issue

• Managing andsupervising diversified activities• Measuring projects, individual activities or organizations• Quantifying activities + enriched Key Performance indicators

Increasingly complexassessment methods

• Legitimating scientific choices• Justify its existence by its results / productions• Contrasting contexts

Pressure to accountability

• almost unlimited access to a hyper-offering of academic papers

• easy to cut / paste / adapt / translate• opportunistic collective strategies

unprecedentedtechnologicalpossibilities

Industrializing evaluation

• Externalizing evaluation• Externalizing evaluation• Publish or perishIncreased evaluation and

accountability concerns

• Support of decisions• Support of decisions• Guide to assessment• Encouraging mimicry

Increasingly prominentrankings

5

Consequence :pressure from and on academic journals

A multiplication of existing medias• Private and public• Print and digital on line

But not outweighed by the growing number of submissions

• A high average rejection rate: from 50% to 90%. • Rejection = quality management and success factor of the journal

An international situation that challenges research and individualsin each country

• Professionalization of teaching and research practices and careers in teaching and research

• International competition between institutions• "research and therefore publish" or "research to publish"

6

New research « economics »

• Charity Business or for-profit organization• Various monetization solutions

• Paid submissions, subscriptions, platforms, pay per view, Open Access

Actual business models

• Low number of subscribers• Reduced resources + niche markets

• But an unreliable quality signal• Attracting authors• The growing role of electronic platforms

Readers and authors : a two-

sided market

A Peer Review Process system and its limitations

• Reviewers - not always - competent and efficient

• The limits of volunteering• Limits of anonymity• Consistency of editorial lines

Genenalizing double-bind evaluation

• Outnumber of journals• Outnumber of papers• Impact on quality

Congestion and overcrowding

• Reading journals or papers ?• Reputation or reading level success• Focusing and "Saint Mathieu effect"

The internet impact

8

An organization of roles leading to confusion of practices

Author Publisher

RefereeAssociated editor

• Roles occupied in turn• Hence the particular importance of

• Enrolment in social networks • Structuring of scientific communities

• Consequences: opportunities to take advantage of confusing roles

THE PERCEPTION OF PLAGIARISM AND THE RESPONSES TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD

10

Perception of evolution

63% of respondents worried about the increase in plagiarism.

(cc) Benghozi et Bergadaà, 2011

… disciplines all affected, but in different ways

Plagiarized people: the first to be affected

76% have been victims or witnesses of scientific plagiarism

… and this persists(cc) Benghozi et Bergadaà, 2011

… but not the only one

… what about the readers ??(cc) Benghozi et Bergadaà, 2011

Plagiarists: who are they ?

(cc) Benghozi et Bergadaà, 2011

How to react ?

(cc) Benghozi et Bergadaà, 2011

Which appeal bodies ?

• Disciplinary Committee (29 respondents)• Chairperson or Institution Executive (12 respondents)• Ethics Committee (10 respondents)• Scientific Board (8 respondents)• Dean of Faculty (6 respondents)• Settlement Legal Services (5 respondents) • Doctoral school (4 respondents)• Department Chairmanship (3 respondents)

Only one respondents (out of two) clearly identified the following

Hence : the need to create and implement appropriate procedures

(cc) Benghozi et Bergadaà, 2011

Repair work

• 55% of the interviewees did not attempt to obtain any redress. They are convinced that they should act in vain, lacking success and wasting time.

(cc) Benghozi et Bergadaà, 2011

A SOLUTION TO ESTABLISH AN INSTITUTIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FRAMEWORK

An interesting system already experienced

Solving two basic issues• "Tell the righteous"

• Community peacemaking• Avoiding the abuse of plagiarism...• But also, avoid abusive or slanderous denunciations.

• Arranging different possible formats of action• Direct requests from the plagiarized person• The whistleblower's involvement if he or she is other• Information and solicitation of potential third party

structures (review, conference, association, publisher)• Applying for assistance at one's own establishment• The resort to the plagiarist hierarchy• The establishment of a mediation body• Advertising on the web or via various blogs• Filing of legal complaints

• An expert panel• An analysis initiated from stylized cases• A basic summary document• Validation by the scholarly societies

concerned• Scientific Councils • Representative of associations and major journals

Method of working

An awareness raising policy and a mediation mechanism Empowering disciplinary communities Establishing a means of dealing with disputes Developing capacities for investigation and

arbitration Ensuring the regulation of relations and pacification

of academic coopetition Gradually defining shared jurisprudence and good

practices

Proposals and aims

• A reference instrument• Can be mobilized at the request of one or all parties• Independent of institutions (establishments, journals...)

The system basics

• An institutional body that can provide an investigation• Once suspected or reported, after disclosure of the possible offence

• Mechanisms to protect the whistleblower, the plagiarized and the alleged plagiarist

• Confidentiality during analysis phase• Participants in the system are also subject to strict confidentiality.

• The provision and processing of contradictory documents• Defence briefs• Answers or argued appeals before publication of findings• Letters of Remarks from Parties

The system principles

• Opinions on whether plagiarism is true or not and the extent of plagiarism• Characterization of the fault or absence of fault • Suggestions to the parties and authorities concerned on ways of redressing or even sanctions

CONCLUSION

24

• 725,000 students are currently involved in doctoral programmes in Europe. That's 240,000 a year. Thus, teaching ethics and integrity in traditional classes of 15 students on average would require more than 1,600 courses/teachers.

• 500 to 600 papers are withdrawn per year. And it's part of the iceberg. Once an article is published, it is quoted, the authors quote themselves from author to author without returning to the sources... .

How to train teachers and make real "Virtue Ethic"?

How to make ethics courses mandatory?

Which actions ?

• When academia’s only answer is to turn to the legal system

• When victims or witnesses of frauds are doublypunished

• When “urban legends” cloud thinking

• When inappropriate mechanisms are put into place

When acting ?

• A mechanism restricted to the francophone disciplinary space

• A mechanism restricted to a specific institution• Nature of embedding and location of the

institutional framework• Sustainable support of system costs• Methods for ensuring transparency of analyses

and procedures• Beyond plagiarism, the more general issue of

scientific fraud and integrity

Limits and pending issues

To be part of a resolution string

(cc) Benghozi et Bergadaà, 2011

Informing

Supporting and going with

Controling and scrutinizing

Sanctionning

Bringing peace to communities

• An intermediate mechanism between direct negotiation and legal proceedings

• Ensuring the admissibility of an application and steering claims

• Support contradictory analyses• To be subject to appeal• Acting and ensuring mediations

• Information, support and good practices• Early lessons on the cases of Plagiarism

In a nutshell …

• Status: an association (founded 2016)https://responsable-academia.org/

• Transdisciplinary and at all levels of intervention

•First circle: scientists and scholarly associations

•Second circle: universities, publishers, detection software...

•Other stakeholders: medias…

The International Institute for Research and Action on Academic Fraud and Plagiarism

(IRAFPA)

Plan 6Mediation and

expertise

Integrated Institute

Plan 1Communicate

through a newsletter

Plan 4Public Conferences

Plan 2 Conceptual and pragmatic

research

Plan 3Workshops and

scientific conferences

Plan 5Five certifications(workshops and

follow-up)

31

The Institute IRAFPA

Thank you for your attention

Benghozi P-J (2011)« Journals and Journal Rankings », in Dameron, S & Durand, T. (eds). 2011. Redesigning Management Education and Research, Challenging Proposals from European Scholars. Edward Elgar, pp. 215-221

Benghozi P.-J., Bergadaà M. (2012) « Publications et plagiat à l'ère d'internet : réponses collectives à de nouvelles pratiques », in Le plagiat de la recherche scientifique, Gilles Guglielmi et Geneviève Koubi (Ed.), pp. 207-221, LGDJ, Paris. http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00705481

Benghozi P.-J., Bergadaà M. (2012) “Métier de chercheur en gestion et web. Risques et questionnements éthiques”, Revue Française de Gestion, vol. 38, n° 220, pp. 51-69.

Institut International de Recherche et d’Action sur la Fraude et le Plagiat Académiques (IRAFPA) https://responsable-academia.org/

References

33