All papers are checked via
|← Aristotle's Nicomachean||Lovers of Self →|
Ethics violation has been a big problem in media and the science world. Many cases involving scientific misconduct and fabrication issues are unacceptable and can be taken as a swindle. Scientific fraud can be committed willingly by unprincipled professional or scientists due to carrier pressure, lack of ethics, greed and even intent for malice (AAS, 2011). Professors or scientists who are involved in scientific fraud devalue and ruin the carrier of their students or the people who assist in the research and development of their findings. Failing to recommend and acknowledge people who assisted or supported the work misleads other professionals and the public at large. It is the responsibility of any editor when writing any report concerning any job in the science world since it’s the only way to prevent scientific misconducts (Scanes, 2011). This paper discus the unethical actions in scientific work and the importance of giving credit for assistance.
Plagiarism is more than just duplicating someone else work and includes using someone else ideas or concepts without acknowledging or giving proper attribution. Responsible authors should avoid fabricating information from others without citing the sources and failing to recognize collaborations. When writing any paper that will represent a report of any scientific work, the author should ensure there is not falsification and must no deceive the readers by not mentioning all the key contributors of the job (knoll.google.com, 2011). It is critical for authors make useful contribution to any work and justify their own contribution and make sure that other contributions are respected. Whenever a scientific work is completed and a report is written, it is important that the author includes all key citations. Scientific misconduct is illegal and unethical in the field of science and research. Every scientist has a responsibility to the community at large, the industry they are working at, to their students and co-researchers to ensure that credit is given to all who deserve it (Scanes, 2011).
In this particular case, where a professor in a university developed a new computer programming language to be used in various computer applications, he was assisted by to graduate students to test the program for consistency and completeness in the process discovering and they were able to make corrections and added other features. Later on the college staff was also involved in programming a compiler for the program and discovered errors in the system which he corrected. The graduate students and the programmer were able to document the language and the compiler to which they wrote a user’s manual. The involvement of all these parties is what led to the success of the project. Every individual was useful at the time it was being developed (knoll.google.com, 2011). It was very unethical for the professor to write a scientific paper on the some project and published it. He failed to acknowledge the contributions that the graduate students and the staff programmer made to the project.
The professor failed to adhere to basic professional ethics and conducts standards commonly applied to all scientific and scholarly publishing. In publication agreement authors should guarantee that the work they are publishing is originally theirs and has not been published elsewhere or there was no external contribution (Prendergast, 2009). The professor lacked integrity and trust, values that are hallmarks in science and publication process. Communicating the research work to the scientific community is what keeps science alive (ams.com, 2011). It is what makes scientists maintain good reputation, find jobs and promotions and get sustainable research support. It is mean to present a scientific research which has been done by many people alone. It is common for such occurrences when creative competent people work together to find themselves victims of unethical behaviors (Washington & Ritter, 2001).
In the current environment of academic research, publication has become complex. Scientific projects are more collaborative and many institutions are turning mot of scientific projects into products. Commercial entities are now having major influence on how intellectual products are published to suit their interest in the market. Nowadays how products are published is no longer a scholarly issue (Washington & Ritter, 2001). As much as learning centers, professional societies and journal publishers have policies and ethical guidelines that measure the standards researchers strive for. Whenever a problem arises on publications, professionals rely on trust that all the persons involved will act in a responsible manner (knoll.google.com, 2011).
Many times graduate students and post-doc who actually do most of the research work are left out when the final product is being presented to the community. The junior members of the scientific community receive minimal recognition of jobs they have been entirely involved (AAS, 2011). For a problem to be solved it is critical for professional t work together and everyone involved to be recognized on the role they played, this will earn them satisfaction (ams.com, 2011). Recognition issues bring out the matter on whether graduate students have the right to earn recognition and if when conflicts arise their rights are protected. Matters such as students are still learning and they don’t have the perspective to make decisions to complicated scientific judgments. Students still have issue on matters concerning the right to publish, owning scientific concepts, the right to access facilities and generally ownership of intellectual materials (Washington & Ritter, 2001).
Institutions such as the American Chemical Society have been on the forefront in developing author’s ethical guidelines. Such guidelines would provide models and help improve scientific ethics on how they present they research work, this will clarify how conflicts are handled and will track individual scientists behaviors to ensure trust is upheld (Scanes, 2011). Students should be enlightened on research conduct to help them not be taken as mere skilled labor. The only way to evade conflicts between researchers and graduate students is by crating awareness on the circumstances that can lead to differences and to create trust that can last long for the interest of all involved persons. Students should be taken through research ethics and publication lessons to understand key ethical values required in the scientific world (Prendergast, 2009). Before any work is publicized, all the stakeholders should be informed and their contributions recognized in the publication (Washington & Ritter, 2001).
Lack of acknowledgement in scientific work is wrong and unethical. Scientific fraud devalues other people’s contributions and ruins the main element of research work which is trust. Individual concepts must be respected and taken serious when writing up publications. It is deceiving not to mention the particular people who carried out a research in any scientific work. Trust can only be earned if respect is given to the upcoming scientists especially graduate students. The professor action of not mentioning the graduate students who took part in the work and the staff programmer is wrong and unethical. This will ruin the relationship between the students and the professor and in the future they may not be willing to work with him or cannot trust him again. Ethics professional ethics should be upheld in research and during publishing in all fields.