1. Group 6 – Daniah, Erik, Shameem, Xingxing
Research misconduct
Group 6 – Daniah, Erik, Shameem, Xingxing

2. Overview of research misconduct
Fabrication
Falsification
Plagiarism
Self-plagiarism?
Defamation …
Xingxing

3. Problem
A PhD student is about to defend. Just before the defense, her adviser finds out that she has plagiarised some of the results. She has a difficult personal situation and has already postponed her defense once.
Possible courses of action:
The adviser stops the defense.
The adviser says nothing.
Xingxing

4. Parties affected Students Adviser/group Victim of plagiarism
University
Scientific community
Funding body
Xingxing

5. Stopping defense Detrimental to her career
Personal relationship between adviser and student at risk
Negative impact on adviser and group
More difficult to obtain funding in future?
Slightly negative for university reputation
Waste of precious time
Set good example for research community
Fair to the victim of plagiarism
Daniah

6. Doing nothing Personal relationship not affected
Gives her a PhD degree
Bad for research community
Devalues PhD degree
Unfair advantage to her
Possibly demoralising for other students in the group
Sets a bad example to her
If someone finds out:
Very bad for university reputation
Ruins adviser’s reputation
Ruins her career
Erik

7. Conflicting values
Doing nothing ( will conflict with following values)
Scientific duty
Moral duty
CUDOS norms
Applied ethics
Justice approach
Violation of H.E Ordinance (SFS 1993:00)
Stopping defense ( will conflict with following values)
Virtue approach
Honest mistake
Ethical dilemma
Shameem