Research Ethics: Ideas and Practices of Russian Young Scientists

Scientists’ misconduct in their research activities is an important problem for science in many countries, including Russia. It leads to negative consequences both for the quality of scientific knowledge obtained and for the reputation of researchers and scientific organizations. However, there is still a small number of empirical studies of this problem in Russia. This work is based on a survey method to explore the ideas of young scientists from all federal districts of Russia about research ethics and the situations of ethical dilemmas that they encounter in their work. In accordance with the chosen theoretical framework: ideas about ethics as an action that is situational by nature, determined by sustainable practices and patterns, the survey was conducted in two stages: an open question about situations of ethical choice in research activities, on the basis of which a detailed questionnaire was then created. As a result, it was revealed that the vast majority of young scientists are faced with situations of violation of ethical standards both in scientific publications and communications, and in the processes of organizing research work. Violations of research procedures, data manipulation, falsification of research results – this is a set of violations in the organization of research that almost three-quarters of respondents encountered themselves or heard about such situations from colleagues. However, there are gaps in consensus about the sources of knowledge about ethics and a lack of institutional practices to prevent violations such as the work of ethics committees or ethical standards.

1. De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal Misbehavior: Scientists Talk about the Ethics of Research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. Vol. 1, no. 1, pр. 43-50, doi: 10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43

2. Pupovac, V., Fanelli, D. (2014). Scientists Admitting to Plagiarism: A Meta-analysis of Surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics. Vol. 21, pp. 1331-1352, doi: 0.1007/s11948-014-9600-6

3. Chubin, D.E. (1985). Open Science and Closed Science: Tradeoffs in a Democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values. Vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 73-80. doi: 10.1177/016224398501000211

4. Rozhkova, M.A., Isaeva, O.V. (2022). Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism in Scientific Works in the Digital Age. Tsifrovoe pravo = Digital Law Journal. Vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 25-35, doi: 10.38044/2686-9136-2022-3-2-25-35 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

5. Altbach, P.G. (2004). The Question of Corruption in Academe. International Higher Education. No. 4, рp. 8-10, doi: 10.6017/ihe.2004.34.7399

6. Israel, M., Hay, I. (2006). Research Ethics for Social Scientists: Between Ethical Conduct and Regulatory Compliance. Sage Publications Ltd, doi: 10.4135/9781849209779

7. Bird, S. (2010). Responsible Research: What Is Expected? Science and Engineering Ethics. No. 16, pp. 693-696, doi: 10.1177/1556264619858534

8. Rehman, A., Jinnah, F. (2018). Academic Integrity and Quality of Research in Higher Education: Inclination and Confrontation for Young Scholars. Towards Consistency and Transparency in Academic Integrity. S. Razı, I. Glendinning, T. Foltýnek (eds.). 268 p. ISBN: 978-3-631-77985-9

9. Anderson, M.S., Horn, A.S., Risbey, K.R., Ronning, E.A., De Vries, R., Martinson, B.C. (2007). What Do Mentoring and Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research Have to Do With Scientists’ Misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-Funded Scientists. Academic Medicine. Vol. 82, no. 9, рp. 853-860, doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c

10. Martinson, B.C., Anderson, M.S., de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists Behaving Badly. Nature. Vol. 435, pp. 737-738, doi: 10.1038/435737a

11. Kennedy, J.E. (2006). Grey Matter: Ambiguities and Complexities of Ethics in Research. Journal of Academic Ethics. Vol. 3, pp. 143-158, doi: 10.1007/s10805-006-9011-7

12. Mumford, M.D., Murphy, S.T., Connelly, S., Hill, J.H., Antes, A.L., Brown, R.P., Devenport, L.D. (2007). Environmental Influences on Ethical Decision Making: Climate and Environmental Predictors of Research Integrity. Ethics and Behavior. Vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 337-366, doi: 10.1080/10508420701519510

13. Boyd, E.A., Bero, L.A. (2000). Assessing Faculty Financial Relationships with Industry: A Case Study. The Journal of the American Medical Association. Vol. 284, no. 17, pp. 2209-2214, doi: 10.1001/jama.284.17.2209

14. Blumenthal, D. (1996). Quality of Care – What Is It? N Engl J Med. Vol. 19, no. 335 (12), pp. 891-894, doi: 10.1056/NEJM199609193351213

15. Pleshchenko, V.I. (2018). The Problem of Plagiarism in Scientific Publications and Graduation Research Papers. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 27, no. 8-9, pp. 62-70, doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2018-27-8-9-62-70 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

16. Guba, K.S., Slovogorodsky, N.А. (2022). Publish or Perish in Russian Social Sciences: Co-Authorship Patterns in Non-Problematic and Predatory Journals. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow. No. 4, pp. 80-106, doi: 10.17323/1814-9545-2022-4-80-106 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

17. Glavcheva, Yu.N., Kanishcheva, O.V., Glavchev, M.I. (2018). Evaluating the Quality of Research Activities: Investigating into the Uniqueness. Nauchnye i tekhnicheskie biblioteki = Scientific and Technical Libraries. No. 10, pp. 5-21, doi: 10.33186/1027-3689-2018-10-5-21 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

18. Viktoruk, E.N. (2013). Ethics of Science: Practical and Applied Model. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 8-9, pp. 149-166. Available at: https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_20206537_83632790.pdf (accessed 30.03.2024). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

19. Macfarlane, B., Zhang, J., Pun, A. (2012). Academic Integrity: A Review of the Literature. Studies in Higher Education. Vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2012.709495

20. Bonn, N.A., Pinxten, W. (2019). A Decade of Empirical Research on Research Integrity: What Have We (Not) Looked At? The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. Vol. 14, no. 4, рp. 338-352, doi: 10.1101/567263

21. Nia, M.G., Harandi, M.F., de Vries, M.J. (2019). Technology Development as a Normative Practice: A Meaning-Based Approach to Learning about Values in Engineering-Damming as a Case Study. Science and Engineering Ethics. Vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 55-82, doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9999-7

22. Clegg, S.R., Kornberger, M., Rhodes, C. (2007). Business Ethics as Practice. British Journal of Management. Vol. 18, no. 2, pр. 107-122, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00493.x

23. Valkenburg, G., Dix, G., Tijdink, J., de Rijcke, S. (2021). Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective. Science and engineering ethics. Vol. 27, no. 1, article no. 10, doi: 10.1007/s11948-021-00291-z

24. Hackett, E.J. (1994). A Social Control Perspective on Scientific Misconduct. Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 242-260, doi: 10.1080/00221546.1994.11778499

25. Brumfiel, G. (2007). Turkish Physicists Face Accusations of Plagiarism. Nature. Vol. 449, article no. 8, doi: 10.1038/449008b

26. Ferguson, K., Masur, S., Olson, L., Ramirez, J., Robyn, E., Schmaling, K. (2007). Enhancing the Culture of Research Ethics on University Campus. Journal of Academic Ethics. Vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 189-198, doi: 10.1007/s10805-007-9033-9

27. Becher, T. (1994). The Significance of Disciplinary Differences. Studies in Higher Education. Vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 151-161, doi: 10.1080/03075079412331382007

28. Guba, K.S., Tsivinskaya, A.O. (2024). Ambiguity in Ethical Standards: Global Versus Local Science in Explaining Academic Plagiarism. Sci Eng Ethics. Vol. 30, no. 1, article no. 4, doi: 10.1007/s11948-024-00464-6

29. Radaev, V.V., Chirikov, I.S. (2006). The Attitude of Students and Teachers to Penalties for Plagiarism and Cheating. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz = University management: practice and analysis. No. 4, pp. 77-82, doi: 10.15826/umpa.2020.04.033 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

30. Maloshonok, N. (2016). How Using the Internet and Multimedia Technology in the Learning Process Correlates with Student Engagement. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow. No. 1, pp. 35-60, doi: 10.17323/1814-9545-2016-4-59-83 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

31. Reason, J. (2000). Human Error: Models and Management. BMJ: British Medical Journal. Vol. 320, no. 7237, pp. 768-770, doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768

32. Fasser, C.E., McGuire, A.L., Erdman, K.M., Nadalo, D., Scott, S., Waters, V.S. (2007). The Ethics Workup: A Case-Based Approach to Ethical Decision-Making Instruction. The Journal of Physician Assistant Education. No. 18, pр. 34-41, doi: 10.1097/01367895-200718010-00006

33. Shamoo, A.E., Resnik, D.B. (2015). Responsible Conduct of Research. Journal of Biomedical Optics. Vol. 12, no. 3, article no. 39901, doi: 10.1117/1.2749726