Views of postgraduate students regarding research ethics in Turkey
Keywords:
Falsification, plagiarism, postgraduate student, research ethics.Abstract
This research aimed to examine the level of knowledge of master and doctorate students regarding scientific research ethics and the frequency of scientific deception identification in scientific publications. The research was conducted using descriptive methods. The group under examination consisted of 112 randomly chosen students who pursued their postgraduate degree in physical education and sports fields. The validity and reliability were determined in the framework of this study. Item total correlation and factor analyses were conducted for the construct validity of the assessment tool. The Alpha Coefficient, which was calculated for the scale reliability as .96, indicated the scale is valid and reliable. The Shapiro-Wilks test was also conducted to determine whether the data were normally distributed. Because the data did not exhibit a normal distribution, a non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was utilised. “Writing more than one article using the same data”, “citing without providing a reference”, “reporting findings that are only consistent with expectations”, “publishing someone else’s ideas without providing references as if they are one’s own”, “presenting the same research in more than one conference or symposium”, and “publishing the same research in more than one journal” are the most non-ethical behaviours perceived in scientific research. All of the participants indicated that “presenting falsified findings of research and publishing someone else’s research with own name” represent non-ethical behaviours. According to the research results, “citing without providing a reference” and “writing more than one article using the same data” were the most unethical behaviours identified in scientific studies.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Belsey. A, Chadwick, R. (1998). Medya ve Gazetecilikte Etik Sorunlar, Nurçay Türkoğlu (çev.), İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
Büyüköztürk, S. (2011). Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı İstatistik, Araştırma Deseni SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
Civaner M, Demiral Y, Şemin S, Amato Z. (2000). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi’nde çalışan öğretim elemanlarının yayın etiği konusundaki bilgi ve görüşleri. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2):161-9.
Erdemir, K N., Öz, M., Güleç, S. (2004). Analysis of attitudes of academicians towards scientific morality: Empirical study on Selçuk University Karaman Campus. 3rd National Congress on Information, Economy and Management. Eskişehir, Turkey, 25-26 October, 69-78.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4(5), 1-11. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
Gardner, W., Lidz, C.W., Hartwig, K.C. (2005). Authors’ reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 26, 244–251. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2004.11.013
Hatcher, T. (2004). Environmental ethics as an alternative for evaluation theory in for profit business context. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 357-363. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.04.009
Hayes, N., Introna, L.D. (2005). Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: When plagiarism gets in the way of learning, Ethics and Behavior, 15(3), 213–231. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1503_2
Hu, G., Lei, J. (2015) Chinese university students’ perceptions of plagiarism, Ethics and Behavior, 25(3), 233–255. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2014.923313
Inci, O. (2009). Bilimsel yayın etiği ilkeleri, yanıltmalar yanıltmaları önlemeye yönelik öneriler. Sağlık Bilimlerinde Süreli Yayıncılık 7. Ulusal Sempozyum Bildirileri, 20 Kasım, Ankara: TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM, 69-89. Retreived from: http://uvt.ulakbim.gov.tr/tip/sempozyum7/inci.pdf
Erzan, A., Irzık, G., Kansu, E., Ruacan, Ş., Tekcan, A.İ., Tolun, A., Yılmaz, Y. (2008) Bilim Etiği El Kitabı, Ankara: TÜBA Yayınları.
Kansu, E., Ruacan, Ş. (2002). Bilimsel Yanıltmanın Günümüzdeki Durumu: Türleri, Nedenleri, Önlenmesi ve Cezalandırılması Archives of the Turkish Society of Cardiology, 30 (12), 763-767.
Köklü, N. (2003). Akademisyenlerin araştırma etiği konusundaki görüşleri. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama. 2(4), 137-151.
Martin, D.E., Roa, A., Sloan L.R. (2009). Plagiarism, integrity, and workplace deviance: a criterion study, Ethics and Behavior, 19(1), 36–50. doi:10.1080/10508420802623666
May, C., Campbell, S., Doyle, H. (1998). Research misconduct: a pilot study of British addiction researchers. Addiction Research. 6(4), 371-373. doi: 10.3109/16066359808993312
Meyer, M.J., Mcmahon, D. (2004). An examination of ethical research conduct by experienced and novice accounting academics. Issues in Accounting Education, 19(4), 413-442. doi: 10.2308/iace.2004.19.4.413
Ongun M.T. (2006). Araştırma ve yayın etiği, Sosyal Bilimlerde Süreli Yayıncılık, I. Ulusal Kurultay Bildirileri, 2-3 Kasım, Ankara: TUBİTAK, ULAKBİM, 89-93. Retrieved from http://uvt.ulakbim.gov.tr/sbvt/kurultay1.pdf?ref=Sawos.Org#page=77
Pieper, A. (1999). Etiğe Giriş,. Translated by Atayman, V., Gönül S. Istanbul: Ayrıntı Publications.
Rankin, M., Esteves, M. D. (1997). Perceptions of scientific misconduct in nursing. Nursing Research, 46(5), 270-276. doi: 10.1097/00006199-199709000-00005
Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics and Behavior, 11, 307–323.
Ruacan Y. (2003). Bilimsel araştırma ve yayınlarda etik ilkeler, Sağlık Bilimlerinde Süreli Yayıncılık, I. Ulusal Sempozyumu, 28. Mart, Ankara: TÜBİTAK, ULAKBİM. 1-7. Retrieved from http://uvt.ulakbim.gov.tr/tip/sempozyum1/sruacan2.pdf
Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru S.E., Çinko, M. (2010). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS'le Veri Analizi, 3. Baskı, Istanbul: Beta Yayınları.
Sisti D.A. (2007). How do high school students justify internet plagiarism? Ethics and Behavior, 17(3), 215–231. doi:10.1080/10508420701519163
Stephens, J.M., Young, M.F., Calabrese, T.H. (2007). Does moral judgment go offline when students are online? A comparative analysis of undergraduates’ beliefs and behaviours related to conventional and digital cheating. Ethics and Behavior, 17, 233–254. doi:10.1080/10508420701519197
Sümer, C. (1998). Türkiye'de psikoloji uygulama, araştırma ve yayımlarında etik ilkeler: Tartışma I. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 13, 77-79.
Tepe, H. (2000). Etik ve Meslek Etikleri, Ankara: Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu Yayınları.
Titus, S.L., Wells, J.A. Rhoades L.J. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453, 980-982. doi:10.1038/453980a
TUBA. (2002). Bilimsel Arastırmada Etik ve Sorunları II, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi, Bilim Etiği Komitesi, Ankara: Tübitak Matbaası.
Ülman Y.I. (2006). Bilimsel bilgi üretiminde yayın etiği (Örnekleriyle bilimsel yanıltma türleri), Tıbbi Yayın Hazırlama Kuralları ve Yayın Etiği ed. H. Yazıcı, M. Şenocak, İ.Ü. Cerrahpaşa Tıp Fakültesi Sürekli Tıp Eğitimi Programı, İstanbul: Nobel Yayınları.
Uluoğlu, C. (2009). Araştırma etiği, Sağlık Bilimlerinde Süreli Yayıncılık 7.Ulusal Sempozyum Bildirileri, 20 Kasım, Ankara: Ankara: TÜBİTAK, ULAKBİM., 47-52. Retreived from: http://uvt.ulakbim.gov.tr/tip/sempozyum7/uluoglu.pdf
Uzun, E., Karakuş, T., Kurşun, E., Karaaslan, H. (2007). Öğrenci gözüyle aşırma (intihal): neden ve çözüm önerileri. Akademik Bilişim, 2007 Bildiriler Kitapçığı, 31 Ocak -2 Şubat, Kütahya, Türkiye, 183-188.
Yannacone, J.V. (1999). Science, ethics, and scientific ethics in the modern world. Environmental Geosciences, 6(4), 164-171. doi: 10.1046/j.1526-0984.1999.64002.x
YÖK (1982). Yükseköğretim Kurumları Yönetici, Öğretim Elemanı ve Memurları Disiplin Yönetmeliği, Retrieved from: http://www.yok.gov.tr/web/guest/icerik/-/journal_content/56_INSTANCE_rEHF8BIsfYRx/10279/17706
YÖK (2015). Doçentlik Sınav Yönetmeliği, Retrieved from http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2015/02/20150207-13.htm
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors can retain copyright, while granting the journal right of first publication. Alternatively, authors can transfer copyright to the journal, which then permits authors non-commercial use of the work, including the right to place it in an open access archive. In addition, Creative Commons can be consulted for flexible copyright licenses.
©1999 Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.