Search

Good academic practice is more than the avoidance of clear-cut cheating. It also involves navigation of the gray zones between cheating and good practice. The existing literature has left students' understanding of gray zone practices largely unexplored. To begin filling in this gap, we present results from a questionnaire study involving N = 1639 undergraduate students from seven European countries representing all major disciplines. We show that large numbers of these students are unable to identify gray area issues and lack sensitivity to the context dependence of these. We also show that a considerable proportion of students have a poor understanding of concepts like plagiarism and falsification, not only in gray zone scenarios, but also in cases of relatively clear-cut cheating. Our results are similar across the faculties and countries of study, and even for students who have attended academic integrity training. We discuss the implications of this for academic integrity training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Questionable authorship practices in scientific publishing are detrimental to research quality and management. The existing literature dealing with the prevalence, and perceptions, of such practices has focused on the medical sciences, and on experienced researchers. In contrast, this study investigated how younger researchers (PhD students) from across the faculties view fair authorship attribution, their experience with granting guest authorships to more powerful researchers and their reasons for doing so. Data for the study were collected in a survey of European PhD students. The final dataset included 1,336 participants from five European countries (Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and Switzerland) representing all major disciplines. Approximately three in ten reported that they had granted at least one guest authorship to "a person in power". Half of these indicated that they had done so because they had been told to do so by the person in power. Participants from the medical, natural and technical sciences were much more likely to state that they had granted a guest authorship than those from other faculties. We identified four general views about what is sufficient for co-authorship. There were two dominant views. The first (inclusive view) considered a broad range of contributions to merit co-authorship. The second (strongly writing-oriented) emphasised that co-authors must have written a piece of the manuscript text. The inclusive view dominated in the natural, technical, and medical sciences. Participants from other faculties were more evenly distributed between the inclusive and writing oriented view. Those with an inclusive view were most likely to indicate that they have granted a guest authorship. According to the experiences of our participants, questionable authorship practices are prevalent among early-career researchers, and they appear to be reinforced through a combination of coercive power relations and dominant norms in some research cultures, particularly in the natural, technical, and medical sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Minimal research has been done to determine how well European nursing students understand the core principles of academic integrity and how often they deviate from good academic practice. Aim: The aim of this study was to find out what educational needs nursing students have in terms of academic integrity. Research design: A quantitative cross-sectional study in the form of a survey of nursing students was conducted via questionnaire in the fall of 2020. Participants: The sample was composed of 79 students in the BScN and MScN programs at Zürich University of Applied Sciences. Ethical considerations: An application for a non-competence clearance was approved by the Ethics Committee in Zurich (BASEC No. Req-2020-00868). The survey was anonymous, and informed consent was obtained prior to participation. Results: The participants had a high level of confidence in their own knowledge but were in many cases unable to correctly identify clear-cut examples of misconduct and to differentiate them from questionable practices. About 13% of the participants admitted that during their university education they had copied shorter passages from other sources into their own text without marking them as quotes. Conclusions: The study documents extensive knowledge gaps among nursing students regarding both academic misconduct and questionable practices and indicates a need for improved academic integrity training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies on academic integrity reveal high rates of plagiarism and cheating among students. We have developed an online teaching tool, Integrity Games (https://integgame.eu/), that uses serious games to teach academic integrity. In this paper, we test the impact of a soft intervention – a short quiz – that was added to the Integrity Games website to increase users' interest in learning about integrity. Based on general principles of behavioral science, our quiz highlighted the intricacy of integrity issues, generated social comparisons, and produced personalized advice. We expected that these interventions would create a need for knowledge and encourage participants to spend more time on the website. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial involving N = 405 students from Switzerland and France, half of the users had to take a short quiz before playing the serious games, while the other half could directly play the games. We measured how much time they spent playing the games, and, in a post-experimental survey, we measured their desire to learn about integrity issues and their understanding of integrity issues. Results: Contrary to our expectations, the quiz had a negative impact on time spent playing the serious games. Moreover, the quiz did not increase participants' desire to learn about integrity issues or their overall understanding of the topic. Conclusions: Our quiz did not have any measurable impact on curiosity or understanding of integrity issues, and may have had a negative impact on time spent on the Integrity games website. Our results highlight the difficulty of implementing behavioral insights in a real-world setting. Trial registration: The study was preregistered at https://osf.io/73xty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]