The value of the world conferences on research integrity : perspectives from Peru

“The World Conferences on Research Integrity (WCRIs), six to date, were initiated at a time when researchers in various countries were at quite different stages in their thinking about research integrity. Over the course of the past decade, the global conferences have reflected and documented signifi­cant changes in the way research integrity is viewed and supported” The Inter-American Network, formed at the 6th WCRI held in Hong Kong, China with members from Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Chile, and the US has contributed to raising awareness of research integrity issues in Latin America. The network established standards for the responsible conduct of research through the joint project “Generation of Recommendations in Scientific Integrity” and has undertaken the translation to Spanish of the Hong Kong Principles, among other initiatives. The participation of Peruvians in the WCRIs has catalyzed the sharing of knowledge in Peru. Such sharing has been reflected in meetings and events to discuss research integrity, formation of networks, and published articles by Peruvians on plagiarism, predatory journals, good practices, and other topics. Unfortunately, only a few representatives from Latin America have participated thus far in WCRIs, networks, and local events. Thus, we believe more space should be created, particularly in Peru and other countries where systems for research integrity are still being established. Such space should offer a safe place to share experiences, initiatives, and concerns about research and academic integrity. Perhaps most important is coming together to conduct training, reinforce mentoring opportunities, and enhance mechanisms for investigating misconduct and promoting integrity in Peru and across Latin America

Avoiding publishing in predatory journals: An evaluation algorithm

Academics and scholars need to publish their research results. In addition, they are required to publish scientific papers to prove their research commitment and to achieve certain academic titles in higher education institutions. Globally, there are many scientific journals of well-known publishing houses/universities, which offer opportunities to publish scientific work. One of the recent topics in academic circles is the increasing number of invitations to publish articles via quick procedures, without going through the adequate review process. This phenomenon is threatening academic integrity, as these publishers/journals aim at financial benefits and not contributing to scientific development and progress. There is a gap in the knowledge of the scientific researchers regarding the journal selection to publish their work. Some of them are still unintentionally publishing in such journals, mainly as a lack of information about them. The main purpose of this study is awareness-raising, warning, and guidance of scientific researchers, particularly young researchers by providing information on how to avoid submitting manuscripts in these journals. To achieve this, we have consulted the recent literature and practices of different countries, summarized the most used tools/methods to identify predatory publishers and journals, and lastly, we have developed a guiding algorithm for evaluating them

Criminal intent or cognitive dissonance: how does student self plagiarism fit into academic integrity?

The discourse of plagiarism is speckled with punitive terms not out of place in a police officer's notes: detection, prevention, misconduct, rules, regulations, conventions, transgression, consequences, deter, trap, etc. This crime and punishment paradigm tends to be the norm in academic settings. The learning and teaching paradigm assumes that students are not filled with criminal intent, but rather are confused by the novel academic culture and its values. The discourse of learning and teaching includes: development, guidance, acknowledge, scholarly practice, communicate, familiarity, culture. Depending on the paradigm adopted, universities, teachers, and students will either focus on policies, punishments, and ways to cheat the system or on program design, assessments, and assimilating the values of academia. Self plagiarism is a pivotal issue that polarises these two paradigms. Viewed from a crime and punishment paradigm, self plagiarism is an intentional act of evading the required workload for a course by re-using previous work. Within a learning and teaching paradigm, self plagiarism is an oxymoron. We would like to explore the differences between these two paradigms by using self plagiarism as a focal point

Good images, effective messages? Working with students and educators on academic practice understanding

Work at Northumbria University has focussed on activity that extends opportunities for students to engage directly with the skills development necessary for sound academic practice. This has included highly visual campaigns on the "Plagiarism trap", providing access to Turnitin plagiarism detection software, guides and sessions to highlight use of associated referencing tools. Sessions on a variety of topics, such as supporting study skills and reading originality reports, have been provided for students on taught, undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. This provision has included students working on collaborative partners' sites and also those on research programmes. Alongside the activities with students, "designing out" approaches have been embedded in staff development within the educator community at Northumbria. Formative use of Turnitin is integrated throughout programmes and academic practice development is formally recognised within the University Learning and Teaching Strategy's focus on information literacy. This article outlines and reviews these activities in a critical institutional context and evaluates responses from a variety of students and educators to determine how effective these measures have been

Office of Anticorruption and Integrity: Annual Report 2013

[Excerpt] Corruption is not single-celled. It does not move in just one direction and has many causes and symptoms. It has no single cure and will continue to grow and fester unless addressed from multiple fronts. The Asian Development Bank’s (ADB) Office of Anticorruption and Integrity (OAI) recognizes that tackling corruption requires a multifaceted approach and a comprehensive network of partnerships and alliances. Tasked to ensure that the finite development funds entrusted to ADB are not misused as a result of fraud and corruption, OAI relies on close collaborations with internal and external partners and stakeholders to fulfill its mandate. OAI’s mandate is underpinned by ADB’s zero tolerance to corruption. It is aligned with ADB’s broader commitment to combat corruption and improve governance as a core strategic objective of ADB Strategy 2020, and the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness of 2005—to which ADB is a signatory—in support of effective, transparent, and accountable aid. More than ever, in 2013 OAI’s anticorruption work focused on prevention, oversight, investigation, and deterrence through partnership, awareness raising, and outreach. Its achievements in 2013 reflect OAI’s close partnership and teamwork with ADB’s governance and operations departments as well as external partners to address fraud, corruption, abuse of resources, and other violations that undermine the integrity and effectiveness of ADB-funded activities

Factors influencing student nurse decisions to report poor practice witnessed while on placement

Background: While it is commonly accepted that nursing care is generally of a good standard, it would be naïve to think that this is always the case. Over recent years concern about aspects of the quality of some nursing care has grown. In tandem with this, there is recognition that nurses do not always report poor practice. As future registrants, student nurses have a role to play in changing this culture. We know, however, relatively little about the factors that influence student decisions on whether or not to report. In the absence of a more nuanced understanding of this issue, we run the risk of assuming students will speak out simply because we say they should. Objectives: To explore influences on student decisions about whether or not to report poor clinical practice which is a result of deliberate action and which is witnessed while on placement. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with thirteen pre-registration nursing students from the UK. Participants included both adult and mental health nurses with an age range from 20–47. Data were analysed to identify key themes. Category integrity and fit with data was confirmed by a team member following initial analysis. Results: Four themes emerged from the data. The first of these, ‘I had no choice’ described the personal and ethical drivers which influenced students to report. ‘Consequences for self’ and ‘Living with ambiguity’ provide an account of why some students struggle to report, while ‘Being prepared’ summarised arguments both for and against reporting concerns. Conclusion: While there is a drive to promote openness in health care settings and an expectation that staff will raise concerns about quality of care, the reality is that the decision to do this can be very difficult. This is certainly the case for some student nurses. Our results suggest ways in which educationalists might intervene to support students who witness poor practice to report