000 03760nam a22004575i 4500
001 978-3-031-02306-4
003 DE-He213
005 20240730165225.0
007 cr nn 008mamaa
008 220601s2017 sz | s |||| 0|eng d
020 _a9783031023064
_9978-3-031-02306-4
024 7 _a10.1007/978-3-031-02306-4
_2doi
050 4 _aTK5105.5-5105.9
072 7 _aUKN
_2bicssc
072 7 _aCOM043000
_2bisacsh
072 7 _aUKN
_2thema
082 0 4 _a004.6
_223
100 1 _aSeadle, Michael.
_eauthor.
_4aut
_4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut
_987930
245 1 0 _aQuantifying Research Integrity
_h[electronic resource] /
_cby Michael Seadle.
250 _a1st ed. 2017.
264 1 _aCham :
_bSpringer International Publishing :
_bImprint: Springer,
_c2017.
300 _aXIX, 121 p.
_bonline resource.
336 _atext
_btxt
_2rdacontent
337 _acomputer
_bc
_2rdamedia
338 _aonline resource
_bcr
_2rdacarrier
347 _atext file
_bPDF
_2rda
490 1 _aSynthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services,
_x1947-9468
505 0 _aPreface -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- State of the Art -- Quantifying Plagiarism -- Quantifying Data Falsification -- Quantifying Image Manipulation -- Applying the Metrics -- Bibliography -- Author's Biography.
520 _aInstitutions typically treat research integrity violations as black and white, right or wrong. The result is that the wide range of grayscale nuances that separate accident, carelessness, and bad practice from deliberate fraud and malpractice often get lost. This lecture looks at how to quantify the grayscale range in three kinds of research integrity violations: plagiarism, data falsification, and image manipulation. Quantification works best with plagiarism, because the essential one-to-one matching algorithms are well known and established tools for detecting when matches exist. Questions remain, however, of how many matching words of what kind in what location in which discipline constitute reasonable suspicion of fraudulent intent. Different disciplines take different perspectives on quantity and location. Quantification is harder with data falsification, because the original data are often not available, and because experimental replication remains surprisingly difficult. The same is true with image manipulation, where tools exist for detecting certain kinds of manipulations, but where the tools are also easily defeated. This lecture looks at how to prevent violations of research integrity from a pragmatic viewpoint, and at what steps can institutions and publishers take to discourage problems beyond the usual ethical admonitions. There are no simple answers, but two measures can help: the systematic use of detection tools and requiring original data and images. These alone do not suffice, but they represent a start. The scholarly community needs a better awareness of the complexity of research integrity decisions. Only an open and wide-spread international discussion can bring about a consensus on where the boundary lines are and when grayscale problems shade into black. One goal of this work is to move that discussion forward.
650 0 _aComputer networks .
_931572
650 1 4 _aComputer Communication Networks.
_987931
710 2 _aSpringerLink (Online service)
_987934
773 0 _tSpringer Nature eBook
776 0 8 _iPrinted edition:
_z9783031011788
776 0 8 _iPrinted edition:
_z9783031034343
830 0 _aSynthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services,
_x1947-9468
_987935
856 4 0 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02306-4
912 _aZDB-2-SXSC
942 _cEBK
999 _c86174
_d86174