Conductas no éticas en la investigación científica: prevalencia, causas asociadas y estrategias de prevención. Una revisión sistemática

• Reyes-Carrillo, Sandra ^[1] ; Eudave-Muñoz, Daniel ^[1]
  1. [1] Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes

     Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes

     México

     
• Localización: Innovaciones educativas, ISSN-e 2215-4132, ISSN 1022-9825, Vol. 24, Nº. Extra 0, 2022, págs. 105-125
• Idioma: español
• DOI: 10.22458/ie.v24iEspecial.4312
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Conduta antiética na pesquisa científica: prevalência, causas associadas e estratégias de prevenção. Uma revisão sistemática
  • Unethical behaviors in scientific research: prevalence, associated causes and prevention strategies. A systematic revision.
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Dialnet Métricas: 1 Cita
• Resumen
  • español

    El plagio ha sido objeto de investigaciones desde hace algunos años; sin embargo, ha sido estudiado principalmente en el alumnado de diferentes niveles educativos, aun cuando es una práctica que se manifiesta también en la investigación científica. Por ello, este artículo parte de responder: ¿Cuál es la prevalencia del plagio entre investigadores? ¿Cuáles son las principales causas asociadas a su comisión? ¿Qué estrategias se emplean para prevenirlo? Se realizó una revisión sistemática de literatura. Un total de 25 documentos fueron evaluados, analizados y sintetizados. Los resultados señalan que la estimación de la prevalencia del plagio es de 4.3% a nivel internacional, porcentaje por debajo de la práctica real debido al sesgo de respuesta: algunos investigadores podrían no estar reportando la comisión de plagio en su práctica investigativa, aun cuando participen de forma anónima en las investigaciones. La principal razón asociada al plagio es la falta de tiempo, relacionada con el trabajo excesivo y con la presión para lograr una promoción. Las estrategias de prevención se agrupan en tres: implementación de capacitaciones, creación o modificación de políticas y documentos. La revisión, a pesar de centrarse originalmente en el plagio, añade información sobre otras prácticas investigativas no éticas. Se concluye que el plagio, a pesar de su aparente baja prevalencia, es un fenómeno grave presente en la investigación científica, que requiere una definición clara y completa con miras a ser aceptada de forma internacional, además de que necesita ser estudiado en mayor medida y con diferentes metodologías. Se sugieren nuevas líneas de investigación y se invita a atender las estrategias de prevención recabadas.

  • English

    Plagiarism has been the subject of research for some years; nonetheless, it has been studied primarily in students of different educational levels, although it is a practice that is also manifested in scientific research. Therefore, this article starts by answering the question: What is the prevalence of plagiarism among researchers? What are the leading causes associated with it? What strategies are used to prevent it? We performed a systematic literature review. A total of 25 documents were evaluated, analyzed, and synthesized. The results indicate that the prevalence of plagiarism is 4.3% at the international level, a percentage below the actual practice due to response bias: some researchers may not report the commission of plagiarism in their research practice, even when their participation is anonymous. The main reason for plagiarism is lack of time, which is related to excessive work and pressure to achieve a promotion. Prevention strategies are grouped into three: implementation of training, creation or modification of policies and documents. Despite initially focusing on plagiarism, this review adds information on other unethical research practices. In conclusion, despite its apparent low prevalence, plagiarism is an alarming phenomenon in scientific research. It requires a clear and complete definition to be accepted internationally, and it needs to be studied further and with different methodologies. This work offers suggestions for new lines of research as well as prevention strategies. 

  • português

    O plágio tem sido objeto de pesquisa há alguns anos; no entanto, tem sido estudado principalmente entre estudantes de diferentes níveis educacionais, embora seja uma prática que também se manifesta na pesquisa científica. Por esta razão, este artigo se baseia nas seguintes perguntas: Qual é a prevalência do plágio entre os pesquisadores? quais são as principais causas associadas que levam a cometer plágio? e quais estratégias são usadas para prevenir o plágio? Foi realizada uma revisão sistemática da literatura. Um total de 25 trabalhos foram avaliados, analisados e sintetizados. Os resultados indicam que a prevalência estimada de plágio é de 4,3% internacionalmente, a percentagem está abaixo da prática real devido ao viés de resposta: alguns pesquisadores podem não estar relatando plágio em sua prática de pesquisa, mesmo quando participam anonimamente da pesquisa. A principal razão associada ao plágio é a falta de tempo, relacionada ao excesso de trabalho e à pressão para ser promovido. As estratégias de prevenção estão agrupadas em três: implementação de treinamento, criação ou modificação de políticas e documentos. A revisão, embora originalmente focalizada no plágio, acrescenta informações sobre outras práticas antiéticas de pesquisa. Conclui-se que o plágio, apesar de sua aparente baixa prevalência, é um fenômeno grave presente na pesquisa científica, que requer uma definição clara e completa para ser aceito internacionalmente, além disso, precisa ser estudado em maior escala e com diferentes metodologias. São sugeridas novas linhas de pesquisa e convida-se a analisar as estratégias de prevenção coletadas.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Abad-García, M. F. (2019). Plagiarism and predatory journals: A threat to scientific integrity. Anales de Pediatría, 90(1), 57.e1-57.e8. https://bit.ly/2KD6eD5
  • American Educational Research Association (2011). Code of Ethics. https://bit.ly/2y7c9uS
  • American Psychological Association (2020). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association [7.a ed.]. Autor.
  • Antes, A. L.; English, T.; Baldwin, K. A. y DuBois, J. M. (2018). The Role of Culture and Acculturation in Researchers’ Perceptions of Rules...
  • Awasthi, S. (2019). Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct: A Systematic Review. Journal of Library & information Technology, 39(2), 94-100.
  • Bishop’s University (s. f.). Departmental Policies & Resources. https://bit.ly/3DMUMSM
  • Bouter, L. (2020). What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 2363-2369. https://bit.ly/3fg3bnq
  • Camacho Sandoval, S. (2016). La luz y el caracol. Estudio, lucha y placer en la universidad. Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes.
  • Carlo, F. C. (2010). Plagiarism Within the Legal Profession and Academe. Ateneo Law Journal, 55, 787-818.
  • Codina, L. (2018). Revisiones bibliográficas sistematizadas. Procedimientos generales y Framework para Ciencias Humanas y Sociales. Universitat...
  • Colella Sandercock, J. (2016). Self-Reporting in Plagiarism Research: How Honest is This Approach? Journal of Research Practice, 12(2), 1-5.
  • Committee on Publication Ethics (s. f.). Plagiarism. https://bit.ly/3S8to67
  • Committee on Publication Ethics (2019). A COPE STUDY (2019): ExPloring Publication ethics issues in the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences....
  • Emerson, L. (2008). Plagiarism, a Turnitin trial, and an experience of cultural disorientation. Originality, Imitation, and Plagiarism: Teaching...
  • Emerson, L.; MacKay, B. y Rees, M. (2014). Plagiarism in the science classroom: Misunderstandings and models. 1-13. https://bit.ly/3ffBGdE
  • Foltýnek, T.; Gipp, B. y Meuschke, N. (2019). Academic Plagiarism Detection: A Systematic Literature Review. ACM Computing Surveys, 52(6),...
  • Felaefel, M.; Salem, M.; Jaafar, R.; Ali, N. M. y Silverman, H. (2018). A Cross-Sectional Survey Study to Assess Prevalence and Attitudes...
  • Galaz, J.; Padilla, L. y Gil, M. (2008). Los dilemas del profesorado en la educación superior mexicana. Calidad en la Educación, 28, 54-69....
  • Gantús, F. (2016). Conocimientos colectivos, obras particulares. Algunas reflexiones en torno al plagio académico. Perfiles Educativos, XXXVIII(154),...
  • Gopalakrishna, G.; Ter Riet, G.; Vink, G.; Stoop, I.; Wicherts, J. M. y Bouter, L. M. (2022). Prevalence of questionable research practices,...
  • Gray, G. C.; Borkenhagen, L. K.; Sung, N. S. y Tang, S. (2019). A Primer on Plagiarism: Resources for Educators in China. Change, 51(2), 55-62....
  • Hernández Islas, M. (2016). El plagio académico en la investigación científica. Consideraciones desde la óptica del investigador de alto nivel....
  • Houdek, P. (2017). Professional Identity and Dishonest Behavior. Society, 54(3), 253-260. Academic Search Ultimate. https://bit.ly/3fhdsjd
  • Institución Pública. Nicolae Testemitanu Universidad Estatal de Medicina y Farmacia de la República de Moldova. (2015). https://bit.ly/3nqZSLc
  • Jereb, E.; Perc, M., Lämmlein, B.; Jerebic, J.; Urh, M.; Podbregar, I. y Šprajc. (2018). Factors influencing plagiarism in higher education:...
  • Kaiser, M.; Drivdal, L.; Hjellbrekke, J.; Ingierd, H. y Rekdal, O. B. (2022). Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian...
  • Khairuldin, W. M. K. F. W.; Anas, W. N. I. W. N.; Kamarudin, M. K. A. y Embong, A. H. (2022). Ethical Issues in Academic Authorship: A Study...
  • Le Maux, B.; Necker, S. y Rocaboy, Y. (2019). Cheat or perish? A theory of scientific customs. Research Policy, 48(9), 1-12.
  • Lei, J. y Hu, G. (2014). Chinese University EFL teachers’ perceptions of plagiarism. High Educ, 70, 551-565.
  • Lei, L. y Zhang, Y. (2018). Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers (1997-2016)....
  • Maggio, L.; Dong, T.; Driessen, E. y Artino Jr, A. (2019). Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices...
  • Memon, A. R. y Mavrinac, M. (2020). Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Plagiarism as Reported by Participants Completing the AuthorAID...
  • Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J. y Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA...
  • Mondragón Barrios, L.; Jiménez Tapia, J. A.; Meza Mercado, D. M. y Sosa Mora, L. (2017). Regulation and self-regulation of ethical practices...
  • Moss, S. A.; White, B. y Lee, J. (2018). A Systematic Review into the Psychological Causes and Correlates of Plagiarism. Ethics & Behavior,...
  • Moylan, E. C. y Kowalczuk, M. K. (2016). Why articles are retracted: A retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed...
  • Ocholla, D. y Ocholla, L. (2016). Does Open Access Prevent Plagiarism in Higher Education? Afr. J. Lib. Arch. & Inf. Sc., 26(2), 187-200....
  • Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), (s. f.). Plagiarism. https://bit.ly/3dBcBK2
  • Ordóñez Torres, K. y Tarasco Michel, M. (2018). Retracción de artículos biomédicos y sus implicaciones éticas. Revista Latinoamericana de...
  • Pandita, R. y Singh, S. (2019). Regulations to prevent plagiarism in higher education in India: A critical appraisal. DESIDOC Journal of Library...
  • Popoveniuc, B. (2018). Plagiarism and the Crisis of Higher Education. Revista Românească pentru Educaţie Multidimensională, 10(3), 1-5. https://bit.ly/3LHBDDF
  • Real Academia Española (2014). Plagio. En Diccionario de la Lengua Española [vigésimo tercera]. https://bit.ly/3SjoJxU
  • Roig, M. (1997). Can undergraduate students determine whether text has been plagiarized? Psychological Record, 47(1), 113-122. https://bit.ly/3LHBQqr
  • Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and Paraphrasing Criteria of College and University Professors. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 307-323. https://bit.ly/3feEjg7
  • Roje, R.; Tomić, V.; Buljan, I. y Marušić, A. (2021). Development and implementation of research integrity guidance documents: Explorative...
  • Ruipérez, G. y García Cabrero, J. C. (2016). Plagiarism and Academic Integrity in Germany. Comunicar, XXIV(48), 9-17. https://bit.ly/3fiBZ7u
  • Satalkar, P. y Shaw, D. (2019). How do researchers acquire and develop notions of research integrity? A qualitative study among biomedical...
  • Schonhaut, B. L. (2019). Integrity and misconduct in biomedical research [Integridad y conductas inapropiadas en investigación biomédica]....
  • Singh, R. y Kumar, S. (2019). Information literacy competency level of social science researchers with respect to information use ethics:...
  • Smith, E.; Williams-Jones, B.; Master, Z.; Shi, M. y Resnik, D. B. (2020). Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements...
  • Šprajc, P.; Urh, M.; Jerebic, J.; Trivan, D. y Jereb, E. (2017). Reasons for Plagiarism in Higher Education. Organizacija, 50(1), 33-46. https://bit.ly/3SxDcXf
  • Solís Vargas, Y. G. (2022). El desarrollo de la moral desde la pedagogía de la autonomía de Paulo Freire. Innovaciones Educativas, 24(37),...
  • Thiese, M. S.; Walker, S. y Lindsey, J. (2017). Truths, lies, and statistics. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 9(10), 4117-4124. https://bit.ly/3r828sk
  • Turnitin (2021). ¿Qué es la integridad académica y por qué es importante? Una guía gratuita de Turnitin. Autor.
  • Universidad de Cambridge (s. f.). Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct. https://bit.ly/3S7lqKh
  • Vuong, Q. -H. (2018). “How did researchers get it so wrong?” The acute problem of plagiarism in Vietnamese social sciences and humanities....
  • Vehviläinen, S.; Löfström, E. y Nevgi, A. (2017). Dealing with plagiarism in the academic community: Emotional engagement and moral distress....
  • Vera, H. (2016). El plagio y la autonomía de las instituciones académicas. Perfiles Educativos, XXXVIII(154), 28-35. https://bit.ly/3dHzzin
  • Weber-Wulff, D. (2014). False Feathers. A Perspective on Academic Plagiarism. Springer.
  • Yankelevich, J. (2016). Mapas prestados para entender el plagio académico. Perfiles Educativos, XXXVIII(154), 20-27. https://bit.ly/3fexKtT
  • Yeo-Teh, N. S. L. y Tang, B. L. (2021). Research ethics courses as a vaccination against a toxic research environment or culture. Research...
  • Yi, N.; Nemery, B. y Dierickx, K. (2019). Integrity in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review of Studies in China. Science & Engineering...
  • Yi, N.; Nemery, B. y Dierickx, K. (2020). Perceptions of plagiarism by biomedical researchers: An online survey in Europe and China. BMC Medical...
  • Zhou, S.; Xu, Z.; Han, J.; Sun, X. y Cao, Y. (2022). An Academic Misconduct Detection Method for Authors’ Behaviors. Computers, Materials...
  • Zimba, O. y Gasparyan, A.Y. (2021). Plagiarism detection and prevention: A primer for researchers. Reumatologia, 59(3), 132-137. https://bit.ly/3r3ETzS