Towards a taxonomy of research misconduct: The case of business school research

Hall, Jeremy; Martin, Ben R.

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.006

Cited by 84 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Steneck (2006) constructed a continuum of research behaviors ranging from the ideal to the worst in three categories: ideal behavior as responsible research practice (RPR); worst behavior as exemplified by fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP), and questionable research practices (QRP) in between. In the same vein, Hall and Martin (2019) suggested three groups of behaviors (see Table 1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Enhancing the Taxonomies Relating to Academic Integrity and Misconduct

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A clear understanding of terminology is crucial in any academic field. When it is clear that complex interdisciplinary concepts are interpreted differently depending on the academic field, geographical setting or cultural values, it is time to take action. Given this, the Glossary for Academic Integrity, newly developed by the European Network for Academic Integrity project, served as the basis for compiling a comprehensive taxonomy of terms related to academic integrity. Following a rigorous coding exercise, the taxonomy was partitioned into three constituent components-Integrity, Misconduct and Neutral terms. A review of relevant literature sources is included, and the strengths and weaknesses of existing taxonomies are discussed in relation to this new offering. During the creation of these artefacts the authors identified and resolved many differences between their individual interpretative understandings of concepts/terms and the viewpoints of others. It is anticipated that the freely-available glossary and taxonomy will be explored and valued by researchers, teachers, students and the general public alike.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…We will then align them with our own taxonomy. We limited alignment of the developed taxonomy to these two more general taxonomies because other taxonomies, such as Kumar's (2008) classification and Hall's and Martin's (2019) taxonomy, derive from field-specific research.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the Taxonomies Relating to Academic Integrity and Misconduct

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, these unethical practices make it likely that students learn implicit lessons about assigning authorship via a “hidden curriculum” (Fryer-Edwards 2002 ; Hafferty 1998 ). Theories about culture may help to explain this phenomenon: “organizational cultures often implicitly encourage while simultaneously condemning misconduct, motivating members to achieve particular ends without providing guidance on how these should be achieved” (Hall and Martin 2019 , 3). To the extent that institutions wish to change their research culture, addressing confusion or disputes about authorship is a strong candidate for targeted interventions.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship Policies at U.S. Doctoral Universities: A Review and Recommendations for Future Policies

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intellectual contribution in the form of authorship is a fundamental component of the academic career. While research has addressed questionable and harmful authorship practices, there has largely been no discussion of how U.S. academic institutions interpret and potentially mitigate such practices through the use of institution-level authorship policies. To gain a better understanding of the role of U.S. academic institutions in authorship practices, we conducted a systematic review of publicly available authorship policies for U.S. doctoral institutions (using the 266 2018 Carnegie-classified R1 and R2 Universities), focusing on components such as specification of authorship criteria, recommendations for discussing authorship, dispute resolution processes, and guidance for faculty-student collaborations. We found that only 24% of the 266 Carnegie R1 and R2 Universities had publicly available authorship policies. Within these policies, the majority (93%) specified criteria for authorship, but provided less guidance about actual processes for applying such criteria (62%), handling authorship disputes (62%), and managing faculty-student author teams (49%). Further, we found that any discussion of dispute resolution practices typically lacked specificity. Recommendations grounded in these findings are offered for institutions to leverage their ability to guide the authorship process by adopting an authorship policy that acknowledges disciplinary diversity while still offering substantive guidance.

show abstract

“…but may also have a bearing on the very nature of the scholarly output in this field (geographical diversity, intellectual pluralism). Given that social science research is more embedded in local context (Hicks et al, 2015), and that editorial ethics is such a hot topic in the broader academic sectoral system (Hall and Martin, 2018), it makes sense to advance reflexive research agenda in terms of science policy studies and scientometric indicators.…”

Section: Researching (And Editing) African Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gatekeeping African studies: what does “editormetrics” indicate about journal governance?

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper probes the internal governance of research journals by focusing on the editorial boards of leading African studies academic journals. We submit editorships to systematic scrutiny through a number of perspectives: geography, gender, institutional affiliation, research performance, entry/exit, etc. Overall, leading journals in the area of African studies are found to be less inclusive than expected: under a quarter of the editors are Africa-based scholars while women are even scarcer. Observations on editorial inflation, interlocking editorships and differentiated journal positioning are also made possible by taking a quantitative approach to editorial evidence. What we refer as "Editormetrics" thus suggests the need for further debate regarding the managerial rules and roles of journals. This perspective may, and perhaps should, inform other evidence-based appraisals of the journal "industry" and the research scene at large.

show abstract

Towards a taxonomy of research misconduct: The case of business school research

Cited by 84 publications

References 77 publications

Enhancing the Taxonomies Relating to Academic Integrity and Misconduct

Enhancing the Taxonomies Relating to Academic Integrity and Misconduct

Authorship Policies at U.S. Doctoral Universities: A Review and Recommendations for Future Policies

Gatekeeping African studies: what does “editormetrics” indicate about journal governance?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About