RPE UNIT 1 & 2

1. What is Philosophy?
The most general definition of philosophy is that it is the pursuit of wisdom,
truth, and knowledge. Indeed, the word itself means ‘love of wisdom’ in Greek.
Whenever people think about deep, fundamental questions concerning the
nature of the universe and ourselves, the limits of human knowledge, their values
and the meaning of life, they are thinking about philosophy. Philosophical thinking is
found in all parts of the world, present, and past.
In the academic world, philosophy distinguishes a certain area of study from
all other areas, such as the sciences and other humanities. Philosophers typically
consider questions that are, in some sense, broader and/or more fundamental than
other inquirers’ questions

2. Give the uses of Philosophy.

Philosophy provides the general principles of theoretical thinking, a method of
cognition, perspective and self-awareness, all of which are used to obtain knowledge
of reality and to design, conduct, analyze and interpret research and its outcomes.

3. List out the four core branches.

The four main branches of philosophy are metaphysics, epistemology,
axiology, and logic.

4. Write a short note on Epistemology.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that considers how people come to
learn what they know. Derived from the Greek word episteme, meaning knowledge
or understanding, epistemology refers to the nature and origin of knowledge and
truth. Epistemology proposes that there are four main bases of knowledge: divine
revelation, experience, logic and reason, and intuition.

5. Give the usage of Ethics.

If ethical theories are to be useful in practice, they need to affect the way
human beings behave. Some philosophers think that ethics does do this. They argue
that if a person realises that it would be morally good to do something then it would
be irrational for that person not to do it. But human beings often behave irrationally -
they follow their 'gut instinct' even when their head suggests a different course of
action. However, ethics does provide good tools for thinking about moral issues.

6. Give a short note on Aesthetics

The study of value in the arts or the inquiry into feelings, judgments, or
standards of beauty and related concepts. Philosophy of art is concerned with
judgments of sense, taste, and emotion.

7. Define morality
Morality is part of our everyday practice, ethics is concerned with the
conceptual analysis of moral linguistic expressions (meta-ethics) as well as with the
rational justification of norms on the basis of ethical theories (normative ethics)

8. Define Meta ethics

Metaethics is the study of moral thought and moral language. Rather than
addressing questions about what practices are right and wrong, and what our
obligations to other people or future generations are – questions of so-called
‘normative’ ethics – metaethics asks what morality actually is. The metaethicist is
interested in whether there can be knowledge of moral truths, or only moral
feelings and attitudes, and asks how we understand moral discourse as compared
with other forms of speech and writing.

9. Short note on Normative ethics

Normative ethics, that branch of moral philosophy, or ethics, concerned
with criteria of what is morally right and wrong. It includes the formulation of moral
rules that have direct implications for what human actions, institutions, and ways of
life should be like.

10. Define Research Ethics

Research ethics provides guidelines for the responsible conduct of research.
In addition, it educates and monitors scientists conducting research to ensure a high
ethical standard.
Research ethics govern the standards of conduct for scientific researchers It is
the guideline for responsibly conducting the research.
Research ethics is unambiguously concerned in the examination of ethical
issues that are upraised when individuals are involved as participants in the study.
11. Write about Applied ethics
Applied ethics refers to the practical application of moral considerations. It
is ethics with respect to real-world actions and their moral considerations in the
areas of private and public life, the professions, health, technology, law, and
leadership.

12. Give the reason of Research Ethics -important to adhere to ethical norms in
research
Research ethics are moral principles that guide researchers to conduct and
report research without deception or intention to harm the participants of the study
or members of the society as a whole, whether knowingly or unknowingly. Practicing
ethical guidelines while conducting and reporting research is essential
to establish the validity of your research.
You must follow ethical guidelines issued by regulatory committees in order to
ensure the safety of the participants of a study, the public at large, and that of the
researcher himself/herself. Following ethical guidelines will ensure that your
research is authentic and error-free, and will allow you to gain credibility and
support from the public. You must adhere to ethical guidelines also while presenting
your findings in your manuscript. This will ensure that your article is plagiarism-free
and also no unverified data reaches the readers of your article. Apart from that,
research ethics fill in a sense of responsibility among researchers and make it easy to
fix responsibility in case of misconduct.

13. Write some principles in research ethics

 Honesty  Responsible publication
 Integrity  Protecting anonymity
 Objectivity  Confidentiality
 Informed consent  Non-discrimination
 Respect for person/respondent  Openness
 Beneficence  Carefulness and respect for
 Non-maleficence/ Protecting the intellectual property
subjects (human)  Justice
14. Write few unethical research practices.
 Duplicate Submission: Submission of your research paper or its
publication in two or more identical journals with or without
acknowledgement to another is called duplicate
submission/publication.
 Falsification/fabrication of research data: Falsification is the
manipulation of the methods used in research or its key findings to
produce a desired outcome. Fabrication is the false recording or
recording of a fictitious data when none exists.
 Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the practice of using other’s work or ideas in
your scientific writing without giving them due credit and passing them
off as one’s own in publication journals to gain recognition. Even using
your own text from other publications in the current writing without
due reference is considered plagiarism, more specifically called self-
plagiarism.
 Authorship Conflict: Any person who contributes to the conception,
designing or acquisition of research data, analysis of data, drafting or
revision of the article, and its final approval before publication is
entitled for the authorship of that paper.
 Conflict of interest: Conflict of interest is a situation in which the
author of the research study may be influenced by personal and/or
financial considerations to affect the quality or the end result of the
research.

15. Give a note on Ethical dilemma

An ethical dilemma takes place in a decision-making context where any of the
available options requires the agent to violate or compromise on their ethical
standards. Ethical dilemmas can be characterized by the following three elements:
1. The agent must be faced with a choice or the need to make a decision.
2. The agent must have more than one course of action available.
3. The agent recognizes that all available courses of action require them to
compromise on some personally held ethical standard or value.
16. Write a short note on Falsification
Falsification is the changing or omission of research results (data) to support
claims, hypotheses, other data, etc. Falsification can include the manipulation of
research instrumentation, materials, or processes.

17. Write a short note on Plagiarism

Plagiarism is, perhaps, the most common form of research misconduct.
Researchers must be aware to cite all sources and take careful notes. Using or
representing the work of others as your own work constitutes plagiarism, even if
committed unintentionally .

PART – B

1. Discuss in details about Philosophy, concept and various branches

Some may argue that philosophy is the essence of education and without
knowing your philosophy how can you learn, how can you teach, how can you live? In
this article the four main branches of philosophy will be discussed as an overview to
aid in understanding the importance of philosophy as a teacher, educator, parent, or
student.

The word philosophy is derived from two Greek words. The first word, philo,
means “love.” The second, sophy, means “wisdom.” Literally, then, philosophy means
“love of wisdom”. Each individual has an attitude toward life, children, politics,
learning, and previous personal experiences that informs and shapes their set of
beliefs. Although you may not be conscious of it, this set of beliefs, or personal
philosophy, informs how you live, work, and interact with others. What you believe is
directly reflected in both your teaching and learning processes. This chapter explores
the various philosophical views that influence the teaching profession.
Although the role of Eastern philosophy in the history of the world and in
education has been significant, this chapter focuses on the role of Western
philosophy in shaping the educational philosophies prevalent in the United States. It
is important to understand how philosophy and education are interrelated. To
become the most effective teacher you can be, you must understand your own
beliefs, while at the same time empathizing with others. Developing your own
educational philosophy is a key part of your journey to becoming a teacher.
To understand the foundations of educational philosophies, it’s necessary to
first examine philosophy’s four main branches. Understanding educational
philosophy will contribute to the understanding of how these foundations have given
rise to what is commonly practiced and believed in the classroom today. The four
main branches of philosophy are metaphysics, epistemology, axiology, and logic.

Metaphysics
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that considers the physical universe
and the nature of ultimate reality. It asks questions like, What is real? What is the
origin of the world? What is beyond the stars? Your consideration of reality as an
external creation or an internal construct can influence your metaphysical beliefs
and perspectives and your teaching. Regardless of your definition of reality, the
exploration and categorization of the physical universe form the foundation of
several school subjects.

Epistemology
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that considers how people come to
learn what they know. Derived from the Greek word episteme, meaning knowledge
or understanding, epistemology refers to the nature and origin of knowledge and
truth. Epistemology proposes that there are four main bases of knowledge: divine
revelation, experience, logic and reason, and intuition. These influence how teaching,
learning, and understanding come about in the classroom.

Axiology
Axiology is the branch of philosophy that considers the study of principles and
values. These values are divided into two main kinds: ethics and aesthetics. Ethics is
the questioning of morals and personal values. Aesthetics is the examination of what
is beautiful, enjoyable, or tasteful. In axiology education is more than just about
knowledge but also quality of life.
Logic
Logic is the branch of philosophy that seeks to organize reasoning. Students of
logic learn how to think in a structurally sound manner. Logic has two types:
deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning involves examining a
general case, deducing a general set of rules or principles, and then applying these
rules to specific cases. Inductive reasoning involves taking specific examples and
considering the general principles, rules, or cases that caused them.

2. Discuss in detail about moral Philosophy and moral judgments

Moral Philosophy
Moral Philosophy is the rational study of the meaning and justification of
moral claims. A moral claim evaluates the rightness or wrongness of an action or a
person’s character. For example, “Lying is wrong” claims the act of lying is wrong,
while “One shouldn’t be lazy” claims a character trait (i.e., laziness) is wrong. Moral
philosophy is usually divided into three distinct subject areas: metaethics, normative
ethics, and applied ethics.

What is Metaethics?
Metaethics examines the nature of moral claims and arguments. This partly
involves attempting to determine if moral claims have clear essential meanings (i.e.,
they avoid vagueness and ambiguity). But it also attempts to answer questions such
as: Are moral claims expressions of individual emotions? Are moral claims social
inventions? Are moral claims divine commands? Can one justify moral claims? How
does one justify them?

What is Normative Ethics?

Normative ethics examines moral standards that attempt to define right and
wrong conduct. Historically, this has involved examining good and bad habits, duties,
or an action’s consequences. In addition, historically, normative ethics has focused
on the prospect of a single moral standard defining right and wrong conduct; but it
has become more common for philosophers to propose a moral pluralism with
multiple moral standards.
What is Applied Ethics?
Applied ethics examines specific moral issues. For example, one is doing
applied ethics when one addresses the morality of abortion, euthanasia, capital
punishment, environmental concerns, or homosexuality. By using the conceptual
tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to resolve
these issues.

Doing Moral Philosophy

While metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are distinct subjects,
these subjects are interdependent. For example, how one pursues normative ethics
will be greatly affected by one’s metaethical assumptions. If one assumes, for
example, that moral claims are divine commands, then one’s normative positions will
be determined by identifying divine commands. Given this relationship between
metaethics and normative ethics, it is common for metaethical questions to arise
during a class discussion on normative ethics. If you have such a question, don’t
hesitate to ask. While I will be able to give only a brief answer in class, I think such
questions are a vital part of doing moral philosophy.
Similarly, how one pursues applied ethics will be greatly affected by one’s
normative assumptions. If one assumes that one always should pursue those actions
which lead to the best consequences, then one’s position on, for example, capital
punishment, abortion, and terrorism will be determined by identifying which
action(s) will lead to the best consequences. Given this relationship between
metaethics and normative ethics, it is common for normative questions to arise
during a discussion on normative ethics. Since we will not focus on applied ethics, it
probably will not occur in our class discussions. However, if this occurs when
discussing an applied ethical issue (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment,
war and terrorism), remember that such questions are a vital part of doing moral
philosophy.

MORAL JUDGEMENT
The moral judgement is the judgement which deals with the moral value or
quality of an action. It is a judgement of value and it evaluates the rightness or
wrongness of our actions. When we analyse a moral judgement then we find that it
contains
 a) a subject which will judge,
b) an object whose action will be judged,
c) a standard in conformity to which the action of the subject will be judged
d) a power of judging the action as required.
Moral judgment is the judgment of moral quality of voluntary habitual actions.
Generally, a moral judgment is given on the voluntary and habitual actions of a
rational being. The voluntary actions of a rational person which involve deliberation,
choice, and resolution, have the moral quality of rightness and wrongness. They are
considered to be right or wrong with the reference to the moral standard. And on the
basis of this standard, moral judgment is given. If the voluntary actions have
conformity with the standard or the ideal, then the moral judgment will express it as
the right action. If the action has conflict with the standard or norms, then the moral
judgment will express it as wrong. So, moral judgment involves comparison of
voluntary acts with the moral standard.
 Moral judgment is active in nature. Because moral judgment is given upon
voluntary and habitual acts of persons and not upon their passive experiences.
 Moral judgment is social in character. Because, as we know, voluntary acts of a
person are right or wrong, because they more or less affect the of interest of
others. Man is a social being. His rights and duties of actions rise out of his
relation to other persons in society. So, moral judgment, apart from society is
inconceivable. Moral judgment can be said to be obligatory in character.
Because a judgment can be given as right, while we feel the moral obligation to
do it. Similarly, moral judgment is given on an act as wrong, when we feel the
moral obligation to refrain from it. Thus, moral judgment is always
accompanied by the sense of duty or moral obligation. And this moral
obligation is essentially self-imposed.

Nature of Moral judgment

Moral judgment is a judgment of values. It is distinct from the judgment of
facts. A Judgment of value is a judgment of “what ought to be”. But a judgment of fact
is a judgment of “what is”. Judgment of fact is a descriptive judgment, while moral
judgment is an appreciative or critical judgment. So, moral judgment is a mental act
of pronouncing a particular action to be right or wrong. According to Mackenzie,
moral judgment is not merely to state the nature of some object, but to compare it
with a standard and to pronounce it to be good or evil, right or wrong. So, it is
normative.
Moral judgment is inferential in nature, involving the application of a standard
to a particular action. But in the language of Bradley, ordinarily moral judgment is
intuitive and immediate. Because, we intuitively brings an action under a moral rule
recognized by the community and judge it to be right or wrong. It is only in difficult
or doubtful cases that we consciously compare an action with the moral ideal and
judge it as right or wrong. Hence, we can find out that a moral judgment presupposes
a subject, who judges an object that is judged, a standard according to which an
action is judged.
Moral judgment is distinguished from logical and aesthetical judgment. As we
know Ethics, Logic and Aesthetics are normative science. And accordingly they have
three supreme norms and ideals of life. Ethics is concerned with the ideals of Highest
Good, logic is concerned with the ideal of Truth and aesthetics is concerned with the
ideal of Beauty. It is true that all of them are appreciative or critical judgment. But
moral judgments are always accompanied by moral obligation and moral sentiments,
which are not accompanied by logical and aesthetics judgments. When we judge an
action to be right, we feel a moral obligation to perform it and have a feeling of
approval. And we judge an action to be wrong, we feel that under moral obligation
we are not to perform it and therefore, we have a feeling of disapproval. Feeling of
approval, disapproval, rightness, wrongness etc. are called moral sentiments. Thus,
moral judgments are obligatory in character and are accompanied by moral
sentiments. So, they differ from logical and aesthetic judgments which are not
accompanied by moral obligation and moral sentiments.
Moral judgements, whether something is good or bad in its own right are
contained wholly in the field of ethics. In the process of reasoning also we find
different classes of judgements and they are usually judgement of facts. But moral
judgement as a judgement of value is concerned with what ought to be. It judges our
actions ought to be. It has distinctive features. It is critical judgement and
appreciative. It is the mental act of discerning and pronouncing a particular action to
be right or wrong. After evaluation and deliberation actions are to be judged in
conformity with a standard. ‘To speak the truth is always right’ is a moral judgement.
Moral judgement differs from judgement of fact which is descriptive judgement and
it describes what is. Judgements of facts are more objective because they depend on
the real nature of the world. For example ‘Water is composed of oxygen and
hydrogen’.
Moral judgement is inferential in character though the element of inference
generally remains implicit. It involves the application of a standard to a particular
action. When we perceive a voluntary action, we compare it with the moral standard
and we judge whether the action is in conformity with it or not. Ordinarily moral
judgements are intuitive and immediate. F.H. Bradley says that they are intuitive
subsumptions. But in complex and doubtful cases the whole process is becomes
explicit and reflective. In complicated circumstances the moral standard is explicitly
held before the mind and applied to the cases under consideration.

Moral judgments Vs Logical judgments

 Logical judgments refer to the ideal of Truth and it is merely a judgement
about. But moral judgments refer to the ideal of supreme Good. The supreme
Good or the highest Good is the ultimate standard of moral judgement.
 In moral judgment there is always moral obligation and moral sentiments.
Moral obligation is the sense of duty or oughtness.
 Again, moral judgements are accompanied by a feeling of approval or
disapproval, feeling of complacence or remorse etc. when we judge an action
to be right, we feel under moral obligation to perform it and have a feeling of
approval.
 Moral judgement is a judgment upon action with reference to the moral ideal.
 Moral judgment is not a judgement in the logical sense of a ‘proposition’ but
that it is a judgment in the judicial sense of a ‘sentence’.
 On the other hand moral judgments are obligatory in nature and accompanied
by moral sentiments.
 Moral judgment has objective validity. An action is right in a particular
situation from the standpoint of the universe. It is not determined by the
subjective inclination and prejudices of the person who makes the judgement.
3. What is the meant by “Ethics”. Explain about the research ethics in moral
judgment.
Ethics
Ethics is a system of moral principles. They affect how people make decisions
and lead their lives.
Ethics is concerned with what is good for individuals and society and is also
described as moral philosophy.
The term is derived from the Greek word ethos which can mean custom, habit,
character or disposition.
Ethics covers the following dilemmas:
 how to live a good life
 our rights and responsibilities
 the language of right and wrong
 moral decisions - what is good and bad?
Our concepts of ethics have been derived from religions, philosophies and
cultures. They infuse debates on topics like abortion, human rights and professional
conduct.

Approaches to ethics
Philosophers nowadays tend to divide ethical theories into three areas:
metaethics, normative ethics and applied ethics.
 Meta-ethics deals with the nature of moral judgement. It looks at the origins
and meaning of ethical principles.
 Normative ethics is concerned with the content of moral judgements and
the criteria for what is right or wrong.
 Applied ethics looks at controversial topics like war, animal rights and
capital punishment

What use is ethics?

If ethical theories are to be useful in practice, they need to affect the way
human beings behave.
Some philosophers think that ethics does do this. They argue that if a person
realises that it would be morally good to do something then it would be irrational for
that person not to do it.
 But human beings often behave irrationally - they follow their 'gut instinct'
even when their head suggests a different course of action.
However, ethics does provide good tools for thinking about moral issues.

Research Ethics in Moral Judgement.

A specialized discipline, which studies about the ethical norms applicable to
apply to people who conduct scientific research or other scholarly or creative
activities

Reasons why it is important to adhere to ethical norms in research:

1. Ethical norms promote the aims of research, such as knowledge, truth, and
avoidance of error. Example, prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying, or
misrepresenting research data promote the truth and avoid error.
2. Ethical standards promote the values that are essential to collaborative work,
such as trust, accountability, mutual respect, and fairness. For example, ethical
norms such as guidelines for authorship, copyright and patenting policies, data
sharing policies, and confidentiality rules in peer review, are designed to
protect intellectual property interests while encouraging collaboration. Most
researchers want to receive credit for their contributions and do not want to
have their ideas stolen or disclosed prematurely.
3. Ethical norms ensure that researchers can be held accountable to the public.
For instance, policies on research misconduct, conflicts of interest, the human
subjects protections, and animal care, make sure that researchers funded by
public money are accountable to the public.
4. Ethical norms help to build public support for research. People more likely to
fund research project if they can trust the quality and integrity of research.
5. Norms of research promote a variety of other important moral and social
values, such as social responsibility, human rights, animal welfare, compliance
with the law, and health and safety. For example, a researcher who fabricates
data in a clinical trial may harm or even kill patients, and a researcher who
fails to abide by regulations and guidelines relating to radiation or biological
safety may jeopardize his health and safety or the health and safety of staff and
students.
Research Ethical Principles:
 Honesty  Responsible publication
 Integrity  Protecting anonymity
 Objectivity  Confidentiality
 Informed consent  Non-discrimination
 Respect for person/respondent  Openness
 Beneficence  Carefulness and respect for
 Non-maleficence/ Protecting the intellectual property
subjects (human)  Justice

Unacceptable /unethical research practices include:

• Publishing the same paper in two different journals without telling the editors
• Submitting the same paper to different journals without telling the editors
• Not informing a collaborator of your intent to file a patent in order to make
sure that you are the sole inventor
• Including a colleague as an author on a paper in return for a favor even though
the colleague did not make a serious contribution to the paper
• Discussing with your colleagues confidential data from a paper that you are
reviewing for a journal
• Trimming outliers from a data set without discussing your reasons in paper
• Using an inappropriate statistical technique in order to enhance the
significance of your research
• Bypassing the peer review process and announcing your results through a
press conference without giving peers adequate information to review your
work
• Conducting a review of the literature that fails to acknowledge the
contributions of other people in the field or relevant prior work
• Stretching the truth on a grant application in order to convince reviewers that
your project will make a significant contribution to the field
• Stretching the truth on a job application or curriculum vita
• Giving the same research project to two graduate students in order to see who
can do it the fastest
• Overworking, neglecting, or exploiting graduate or post-doctoral students
 • Failing to keep good research records
• Failing to maintain research data for a reasonable period of time
• Making derogatory comments and personal attacks in your review of author's
submission
• Promising a student a better grade for sexual favors
• Using a racist epithet in the laboratory
• Making significant deviations from the research protocol approved by your
institution's Animal Care and Use
• Committee or Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research
without telling the committee or the board
• Not reporting an adverse event in a human research experiment
• Wasting animals in research
• Exposing students and staff to biological risks in violation of your institution's
biosafety rules
• Rejecting a manuscript for publication without even reading it
• Sabotaging someone's work
• Stealing supplies, books, or data
• Rigging an experiment so you know how it will turn out
• Making unauthorized copies of data, papers, or computer programs
• Owning over $10,000 in stock in a company that sponsors your research and
not disclosing this financial interest
• Deliberately overestimating the clinical significance of a new drug in order to
obtain economic benefits

4. Write the different principles of Scientific Ethics.

Scientific research ethics vary by discipline and by country, and this analysis
sought to understand those variations. Variations in ethical principles across
disciplines are usually due to whether the discipline includes human or animal
subjects.
Variations in ethical principles across countries are usually due to local laws,
oversight, and enforcement; cultural norms; and whether research is conducted in
the researchers' host country or a foreign country.
 Researchers should understand which ethics are common across disciplines,
how these ethics might vary geographically, and how emerging topics are shaping
future ethics. Based on the ethics of scientific research and how the research is
conducted, rather than on how the research is applied was discussed here.

Ten ethical principles common across scientific disciplines

1. Duty to society: Researchers and research must contribute to the well-

being of society.
2. Beneficence: Researchers should have the welfare of the research
participant in mind as a goal and strive for the benefits of the research to
outweigh the risks.
3. Conflict of interest: Researchers should minimize financial and other
influences on their research and on research participants that could bias
research results. Conflict of interest is more frequently directed at the
researcher, but it may also involve the research participants if they are
provided with a financial or nonfinancial incentive to participate.
4. Informed consent: All research participants must voluntarily agree to
participate in research, without pressure from financial gain or other
coercion, and their agreement must include an understanding of the
research and its risks. When participants are unable to consent or when
vulnerable groups are involved in research, specific actions must be taken
by researchers and their institutions to protect the participants.
5. Integrity: Researchers should demonstrate honesty and truthfulness. They
should not fabricate data, falsify results, or omit relevant data. They should
report findings fully, minimize or eliminate bias in their methods, and
disclose underlying assumptions.
6. Nondiscrimination: Researchers should minimize attempts to reduce the
benefits of research on specific groups and to deny benefits from other
groups.
7. Nonexploitation: Researchers should not exploit or take unfair advantage
of research participants. Privacy and confidentiality
 8. Privacy and Confidentiality:
a. Privacy: Research participants have the right to control access to
their personal information and to their bodies in the collection of
biological specimens. Participants may control how others see,
touch, or obtain their information.
b. Confidentiality: Researchers will protect the private information
provided by participants from release. Confidentiality is an extension
of the concept of privacy; it refers to the participant’s understanding
of, and agreement to, the ways identifiable information will be stored
and shared.
9. Professional competence: Researchers should engage only in work that
they are qualified to perform, while also participating in training and
betterment programs with the intent of improving their skill sets. This
concept includes how researchers choose research methods, statistical
methods, and sample sizes that are appropriate and would not cause
misleading results.
10. Professional discipline: Researchers should engage in ethical research
and help other researchers engage in ethical research by promulgating
ethical behaviors through practice, publishing and communicating,
mentoring and teaching, and other activities.
 Each ethical principle applies to the scientific inquiry, the conduct and
behaviors of researchers, or the ethical treatment of research participants.
 Only one ethical principle — duty to society — applies to the scientific inquiry
by asking whether the research benefits society.
 Variations in ethical principles across disciplines are usually due to whether
the discipline includes human or animal subjects.
 Variations in ethical principles across countries are usually due to local laws,
oversight, and enforcement; cultural norms; and whether research is
conducted in the researchers' host country or a foreign country.
5. Explain in detail about intellectual honesty and research integrity.
Research Integrity
Research integrity may be defined as active adherence to the ethical principles
and professional standards essential for the responsible practice of research.
By active adherence we mean adoption of the principles and practices as a
personal credo, not simply accepting them as impositions by rule makers.
By ethical principles we mean honesty, the golden rule, trustworthiness, and
high regard for the scientific record.
NAS report definition: “For individuals research integrity is an aspect of moral
character and experience. It involves above all a commitment to intellectual honesty
and personal responsibility for ones actions and to a range of practices that
characterize responsible research conduct.”
These practices include:
1. Honesty and fairness in proposing, performing, and reporting research;
2. Accuracy and fairness in representing contributions to research proposals
and reports;
3. Proficiency and fairness in peer review;
4. Collegiality in scientific interactions, communications and sharing of
resources;
5. Disclosure of conflicts of interest;
6. Protection of human subjects in the conduct of research;
7. Humane care of animals in the conduct of research;
8. Adherence to the mutual responsibilities of mentors and trainees.
While science encourages (no, requires) vigorous defense of one’s ideas and
work, ultimately research integrity means examining the data with objectivity and
being guided by the results rather than by preconceived notions.

Intellectual Honesty
Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of
ideas. A person is being intellectually honest when he or she, knowing the truth,
states that truth. Intellectual honesty pertains to any communication intended to
inform or persuade.
 Intellectual Honesty combines good faith with a primary motivation
toward seeking true beliefs. Intellectual honesty is important because the alternative,
intellectual dishonesty is harmful.

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem-solving, characterized by

an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different
ways including:

 Ensuring support for chosen ideologies does not interfere with the pursuit
of truth;
 Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when
such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
 Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give
misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
 References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and
plagiarism is avoided.

Ten Signs of Intellectual Honesty

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument.
2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative
viewpoints exist.
3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions
and biases.
4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak.
5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong.
6. Demonstrate consistency.
7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the
argument.
8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it.
9. Show a commitment to critical thinking.
10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good.
6. Describe the details of ethics of Scientific Research- Values and Principles.

Ethics of scientific research

The National Council for Research and Development is appointed by the
government and operates through its plenum and committees, one of which is the
Committee for Ethics in Science and Intellectual Property.
This Committee has decided to take a number of steps in order to raise the
awareness of members of the scientific research community - both researchers and
students - regarding questions of ethics in scientific research. The intention of the
Committee is to bring the level of awareness as to the importance of engaging in
research ethics, and the level of professionalism in doing so, to international
standards prevalent in the United States and a number of European countries. The
Committee decided, at the first stage, to disseminate throughout the scientific
research community, a document manifesting the values and principles of scientific
research. A draft was prepared and distributed, commented on and improved. The
revised version is now being distributed to all institutions engaged in scientific
research and higher education in Israel.
At the second stage, the Committee intends to provide these bodies with
teaching aids, to include both general and modular elements, suitable to the various
fields of research. At the third stage the Committee will offer general guidelines for
the establishment and maintenance of professional bodies within each of the
institutions engaged in scientific research or education, both to foster ethics and to
investigate allegations of ethical misconduct. In this, Israel lags significantly behind
the United States, and in the Committee's opinion, steps should be taken to narrow
this gap, in a prudent and gradual fashion.
The pursuit of ethics in scientific research and other professional fields,
fundamentally entails fostering understanding of ethical values and principles, both
for their own sake, and in order to increase their practical application. The
investigation of misconduct is unavoidable, but should never be considered the
foremost concern in the field of professional ethics.
Values and Principles

Truth: The scientist is concerned with the expansion of human knowledge of the
world, the deepening of human understanding of its aspects, and the enhancement of
human ability to exploit this knowledge for the achievement of goals vital to
humanity, or having social merit.
The scientist serves these goals, in every branch of science, by acting in
accordance with the methods of scientific research in each branch, and the rules of
conduct in the scientific community in general.
Freedom: The scientist serves the goals of scientific research, based on the principle
of scientific research freedom, which is one of the most prominent expressions of the
democratic system.
The scientist undertakes the obligation to comply with practical restrictions
imposed upon freedom of scientific research by the principles of the democratic
system, for the adequate safeguarding of human life, welfare, dignity and liberty.
The scientist in willing to undertake the obligation to comply with practical
restrictions in the areas of development and application, to the extent that these are
required by social or economic considerations, in keeping with the principles of the
democratic system.
Responsibility: The scientist bears full responsibility for every scientific research or
experiment he or she conducts, particularly with regard to its direct effect on human
lives and on human physical and mental health, welfare, dignity and liberty.
The scientist bears special responsibility for such direct effects upon those
participating as patients or subjects, in scientific research or experimentation. The
principles of the Helsinki Declaration regarding clinical experiments upon humans
determine the scientist's threshold of responsibility, and it was in the spirit of these
principles that the threshold of responsibility in non-clinical human experimentation
was established.
The scientist pays real heed to considerations regarding the very need to use
animals in planned or conducted research and experimentation, and to
considerations regarding the lives and welfare of the animals being used, particularly
with regard to minimizing the suffering that may be inflicted upon them during the
course of the experiment or thereafter.
 The scientist acts out of a sense of responsibility, on grounds of which they
constantly take into account in the knowledge that the results of his or her research
may be used to attain goals within a wide range, from the beneficial to humanity to
the criminal and abhorrent.
Integrity: The scientist performs every scientific act in accordance with all of the
requirements of the scientific method within the framework of which he or she
works, and at the highest standards
The scientist analyses data and, generalisations, experiments and theories,
whether his or her own or another's, equitably, and with the requisite scope, depth
and precision.
The scientist presents his or her data in full, precisely, frankly and fairly.
Collaboration: The scientist acts within a universal framework of scientific
collaboration, based on the shared scientific goals.
The scientist fosters scientific collaboration by maintaining an atmosphere of
openness, mutual assistance and trust among scientists, their assistants and
students.
The scientist merits individual, collective and institutional credit and may
possess pursuant rights to intellectual property. for scientific achievements to which
he or she has made a unique or significant contribution,
Professionalism: The scientist engages in his or her scientific pursuits in a wholly
professional manner, making judicious and continual use of the special knowledge,
particular to his or her area of expertise.
The scientist strives to keep abreast of developments in his or her area of
expertise and in every area of knowledge pertinent to his or her work.
The scientist draws practical conclusions in the field of ethics of scientific
research from the values and principles of scientific research.
The scientist imparts the values and principles of scientific research to all
those conducting research or experimentation under his or her supervision,
particularly to students in every course of study serving to prepare them for
professional activity within the scientific research community.
7. Discuss about salami Publications
Salami publication or segmented publication is a distinct form of redundant
publication which is usually characterized by similarity of hypothesis, methodology
or results but not text similarity. These aspects of publications are not objectively
detected by software applications and therefore present a serious threat to
publication ethics.
Research Integrity Corner presented the ethical problem of self-plagiarism and
ways to handle such cases. One of the forms of self-plagiarism is segmented
publication, also called “salami publication”. Even though salami publication was
briefly described in the previous article, recent cases of questionable publication
ethics show that this type of misconduct is not recognized as such.
Salami publication can be roughly defined as a publication of two or more
articles derived from a single study. Articles of such type report on data collected
from a single study split into several segments just large enough to gain reasonable
results and conclusions, also known as “minimal publishable unit”.
Most readers will not fail to recognize a true “textbook” duplicate publication
when they come across one. However, it is less likely that two publications with no
obvious text similarity, each describing different aspects of the same studied sample,
will be considered as serious misconduct. From the publication ethics point of view,
it is even worse because it cannot be easily detected, gives undeserved credit to
authors, misleads the scientific community and directly influences clinical practice by
distorting medical evidence.

How to detect salami publication?

There is no software application or algorithm for detection of salami
publication. Identifying this type of publication misconduct is complex because
salami publications do not often include text plagiarism so that manuscripts can
easily evade strict software checking. Only under the rare circumstances of
encountering both the original and the salami manuscript can some editors or
reviewers suspect salami publication. Even though there are no objective ways to
detect this sort of redundant publication, manuscripts suspected of being salami
publications often report on identical or similar sample size, hypothesis, research
methodology and results, and very often have the same authors
Is salami publication always prohibited?
There are some situations when salami publication or redundant publication
is allowed. Manuscripts based on the same or similar patient sample can be
published in more than one journal for a different population of readers, for example
from an epidemiologist’s or clinical chemist’s point of view. Publication of
professional guidelines in two or more different languages is also not considered to
be salami or duplicate publication when it is done with the authors’ or publishers’
consent. Follow up investigations can be published using parts of already published
results when the new manuscript largely contributes new scientific knowledge.
However, in all such cases, authors are obliged to provide all necessary
information to the editor in order to evaluate the justification for publishing such a
manuscript. Authors must clearly state which of the presented results are already
published and give the full source and consent of the original author when
applicable. The added value of the new manuscript has to be properly described in
the second manuscript and the extent to which two manuscripts are similar has to be
easily determined. Citing the original manuscript solely by listing it in the reference
section is not enough.
Manuscripts derived from longitudinal studies usually do not contain any
overlapping results and when they are, overlaps should be minimal and always
properly addressed to the already published original article. The authors must fully
explain which of the presented information is already published and why is it
relevant to present it again in different context.
The final decision to publish such manuscript is with the journal editor but the
crucial point is the author’s honesty and transparency.

What is the problem with salami publication?

Salami publication is unethical for the reasons described further in this
section. Authors are often advised to present the data in the simplest possible way
and to focus on simple hypotheses in order to maintain the attention of the readers.
For that reason many authors “simplify” their findings by splitting the results
collected in a single study into several manuscripts. The exceptions when segmenting
is allowed are discussed in the previous section.
 Like any other form of redundant publication, salami publications artificially
enlarge the number of one author’s scientific work and therefore give undeserved
benefit to those authors in career advancement or project funding. Greater number
of articles can give a better chance for citations. Moreover, such misconduct abuses
the editor’s, reviewer’s and reader’s time and valuable publishable space at the
expense of another truly original article. The ethical issues are numerous, from
dishonesty to copyright violation. The most prominent reason for severe prosecution
of salami publication or any form of duplicate publication is its outright influence on
overall knowledge which is the basis for clinical decision making, guidelines, and
professional recommendations and so on. Taking the same data twice into result
calculations can significantly distort the final outcome of meta-analysis or other
systematic reviews and therefore have a direct impact on clinical practice.

Troubleshooting salami publication

As mentioned before, there is very small chance that the salami publication
will be caught using plagiarism detection software. These are the situations where
the true value of a good editor or reviewer is revealed. Conscientious readers are also
of great help although it would be desirable to detect such misconduct before it
reaches the readers.

8. Write in details about the concepts of Falsification, Fabrication and

Plagiarism
Basic Research Misconduct
Known as the three “cardinal sins” of research conduct, falsification,
fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP) are the primary concerns in avoiding research
misconduct. Any divergence from these norms undermines the integrity of research
for that individual, lab, university/corporation, and the field as a whole.
Falsification
Falsification is the changing or omission of research results (data) to support
claims, hypotheses, other data, etc. Falsification can include the manipulation of
research instrumentation, materials, or processes. Manipulation of images or
representations in a manner that distorts the data or “reads too much between the
lines” can also be considered falsification.
Fabrication
Fabrication is the construction and/or addition of data, observations, or
characterizations that never occurred in the gathering of data or running of
experiments. Fabrication can occur when “filling out” the rest of experiment runs, for
example. Claims about results need to be made on complete data sets (as is normally
assumed), where claims made based on incomplete or assumed results is a form of
fabrication.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is, perhaps, the most common form of research misconduct.
Researchers must be aware to cite all sources and take careful notes. Using or
representing the work of others as your own work constitutes plagiarism, even if
committed unintentionally. When reviewing privileged information, such as when
reviewing grants or journal article manuscripts for peer review, researchers must
recognize that what they are reading cannot be used for their own purposes because
it cannot be cited until the work is published or publicly available.
“Cases of misconduct in science involving fabrication, falsification, and
plagiarism breach the trust that allows scientists to build on others’ work, as well as
eroding the trust that allows policymakers and others to make decisions based on
scientific and objective evidence. The inability or refusal of research institutions to
address such cases can undermine both the integrity of the research process and self-
governance by the research community.”
 Direct Plagiarism: Direct plagiarism is the word-for-word transcription of a
section of someone else’s work, without attribution and without quotation
marks.
 Self Plagiarism: Self-plagiarism occurs when a student submits his or her own
previous work, or mixes parts of previous works, without permission from all
professors involved.
 Mosaic Plagiarism : Mosaic Plagiarism occurs when a student borrows
phrases from a source without using quotation marks, or finds synonyms for
the author ’ s language while keeping to the same general structure and
meaning of the original. Sometimes called “patch writing,” this kind of
 paraphrasing, whether intentional or not, is academically dishonest and
punishable – even if you footnote your source!
 Accidental Plagiarism: Accidental plagiarism occurs when a person neglects
to cite their sources, or misquotes their sources, or unintentionally
paraphrases a source by using similar words, groups of words, and/ or
sentence structure without attribution.

9. Explain in details about the misrepresentation distortion of research

Data publication and reporting is the process of preparing and

disseminating research findings to the scientific community. Scholarly disciplines can
only advance through dissemination and review of research findings at professional
meetings and publications in discipline-related journals. The tacit assumption in
publishing is one of trust between the author(s) and readers regarding the accuracy
and truthfulness of any submission.
The practice of ensuring research integrity is relevant at all stages of research
investigation, from early conceptualization, design, implementation, to analysis. This
practice also extends to the stage of documenting and preparing results for
publication. In this process, researchers may experience many more challenges to
preserving research integrity.

Considerations/issues in data reporting and publishing

There are often factors in research settings that can result in compromises to
data integrity. These factors may facilitate conditions where the goal of conducting
research in as objective a manner as possible can sometimes be challenged. These
can be categorized as either external or internal factors as follows:
External Factors:
 Publication pressure  Unclear guidelines
 Professional competition  Lack of penalties
 Job security  Little chance of getting caught
 Lack of formal mentoring  Bad examples from mentors
Internal Factors: ⦁ Sloppy writing/reporting

 Individual ego or vanity  Psychiatric illness (Weed, 1998)

 Personal financial gain  Incompetence
Importance of accurate and honest data reporting
Investigators demonstrating lapses of integrity while engaged in data
reporting and publishing can have a negative influence in the direction of future
research efforts, threaten to compromise the credibility of a particular field of study,
and may ultimately risk the well-being and safety of the public in general, as well as
research subjects in particular.
Sources of guidance promoting good data reporting practices and publishing
include faculty advisors who carefully instruct graduate students, departmental
chairpersons mentoring researchers new to the field, regular review of published
university policies, existing codes of professional ethics, or established government
rules and regulations. Deficiencies in training or a lack of awareness of existing
policies, codes, or rules may increase the likelihood of a deviation from the
acceptable standards of practice in reporting and publishing.
Listed below are some issues related to integrity of data reporting and
publication:

Misrepresentation
Due to problems data in collection, researchers may omit data that is not
supportive of the research hypothesis. Alternately, data may be fabricated if the data
collection process was somehow interrupted or data was lost, and the researchers
believe the invented data would have been similar to what was anticipated. In either
case, the true scope of the data findings remains hidden from readers who are unable
to accurately assess the validity of the findings.

Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the act of taking credit for ideas or data that rightfully belongs to
others. Related to this is the theft of ideas from grants and drafts of papers that a
researcher has reviewed. This harms the researcher(s) from which the idea(s) or
data was appropriated improperly acknowledged.

Selectivity of reporting / failure to report all pertinent data

This is the practice of only using data that supports one’s research hypothesis
and ignoring or omitting data that does not. A related practice is inaccurate reporting
of missing data points. As explained under “Misrepresentation” earlier, the true
scope of the data findings remains hidden from readers who are unable to accurately
assess the validity of the findings.

Failure to disclose conflicts of interest

Editors, reviewers, or readers who are not aware of possible conflicts of
interest (financial and otherwise) may not have an opportunity to adequately assess
the validity of research findings without being aware of possible undue influences
from the sponsors of an investigation. These conflicts may compromise researchers’
credibility in their fields.

Publication bias / neglecting negative results

Since the vast majority of research findings submitted to professional journals
tend to be ‘positive’ in nature, the literature in most scientific fields demonstrates a
negative bias. This in part reflects the reluctance of journal editors to publish articles
with negative findings. Thus, researchers are less willing to report findings that fail
to demonstrate an intended effect or yield an expected result. The value of these
publications could be substantial in that other investigators would not needlessly
pursue a fruitless path of research.

Analysis of data by several methods to find a significant result

This is also known as ‘milking’ or ‘dredging the data’ and involves researchers
utilizing a variety of statistical tests in the hopes of yielding a significant result. The
proper procedure would be to base the selection of desired tests on a theory or
theoretical framework rather than selecting tests a priori. Other related statistical
issues include reporting percentages rather than absolute numbers due to small
sample size, reporting differences when statistical significance is not reached
suggesting a certain trend exists, reporting no difference when statistical power is
inadequate, and failure to include the total number of eligible participants. The
importance of this last point is the difficulty for readers to be able to determine
whether a dismal non-respondent rate might compromise the representativeness of
respondents.

Inadequate evaluation of prior research

This refers to an insufficient review of available literature that presents an
incomplete picture of the current status of a particular research area. A critique of
the included citations may lack the required depth of analysis and fail to justify the
need for proposed research.

Ignoring citations or prior work that challenge stated conclusions or call

current findings into question
Selective inclusion of citations that minimize threats to the justification for the
present study can compromise the integrity of the study. Whether done intentionally
or not, omissions can have the untoward consequence of providing support for an
author’s position.

Misleading discussion of observations

This may result from using inappropriate statistical tests, neglecting negative
results, omitting missing data points, failing to report actual numbers of eligible
subjects, using inappropriate graph labels or terminology, and data dredging. These
can result in readers becoming less able to objectively critique the findings.

Reporting conclusions that are not supported

Faulty data collection, inappropriate analyses, gaps in logic, and unexplained
deviation from conventionally accepted methods of interpretation can result in
conclusions that are not valid. Readers cannot assess the validity of the conclusions
for themselves unless all the necessary information is honestly reported.

Breaking down of a single piece of research into multiple overlapping reports

This can occur when the distinction and differences in findings between
reports is negligible and the focus is publishing for quantity versus quality. A related
practice is submission of duplicate publications in journal from different disciplines
or in different languages. The expectation is that investigators would not read journal
from different fields of study or languages. Literature reviews or meta-analyses that
are conducted may lead to an inaccurate assessment of findings from a particular
research area due to duplicate publications of the same study in different journals.

Just Attribution of Authorship

Publication disputes generally fall into four categories(Ritter, Washington, 2001):
1. a researcher is listed as an author but did not have a chance to review or
approve the manuscript
 2. a researcher is promised first authorship when the project is completed, but
the principal investigator adds the work of someone else, who then becomes
first author
3. a researcher claims first authorship on the basis of the amount of work he or
she did when not given that recognition, and
4. after leaving a laboratory, a researcher does not receive credit in an article
that includes his or her work. Related to this is submission of manuscripts not
seen and reviewed by all the listed co-authors of a publication
A fair and equitable understanding of each author’s contribution to published
research provides clear credit and acknowledgement for advancing a field of study.

Inappropriate use of terminology without precise definitions

A potential barrier to successful cross-disciplinary investigations is the use of
field-specific terminology. Encouraging the use of precise definitions can reduce
confusion and promote understanding of research conducted.

Inflation of research results for the media

This involves providing statements for public and not professional
consumption that are insufficiently supported by data for the purpose of publishing
un-reviewed or untested results in a non-scientific or non-scholarly
magazine/media. Premature reporting of results that turn out to be unsubstantiated
may compromise the credibility of a particular field.
Publishing in peer-reviewed journals or presenting in scholarly meetings is
the primary mechanism for investigators to disseminate their findings to the
research community. This community relies on authors(s) to report the events of a
study honestly and accurately. All researchers should be aware of the issues that
compromise the integrity of data reporting and publishing. Ensuring integrity is
essential to promoting the credibility of all fields of study.