Acknowledgement

“Excellence and integrity are inextricably linked.”

One of the most important instrumental values of maintaining research integrity is to produce excellent research. Giving proper credit encourages capable researchers to make the best of their potential. Following strict data handling procedures enhances the credibility of the research process. Record keeping enables fellow researchers to reflect on the research work conveniently. Adding these factors together, one could see why a research community underpinned by integrity outperforms others. Mr. David Willetts, Minister for Universities and Science of the United Kingdom recognized that, “Excellence and

HKU Policy on Research Integrity: Plagiarism

Section 3.1 ('Plagiarism and self-plagiarism') of the HKU Policy on Research Integrity contains the following: ŸPlagiarism is direct copying of textual material or wilful use of other people’s data and ideas, and presenting them as one’s own without acknowledgement; ŸSelf-plagiarism is reuse of one’s own data or previously written work in a ‘new’ publication without acknowledging that the data set has been used or written work has been published elsewhere. References to what could constitute plagiarism may be found in the booklet What is Plagiarism?

Do the same plagiarism rules apply when courts copy a party’s submissions in the judgment?

In Cojocaru v British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre [2013] 2 S.C.R. 357, the trial judge's decision copied significant parts of the Plaintiffs' submissions (although he did not accept all of their submissions). The trial judge did not, however, attribute the incorporated material to its original author. The trial judge did discuss some issues and concluded in his own words. The Defendants were held to be liable in negligence. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia held, by a majority, that the trial judge's

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Plagiarism

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (jointly published by the European Science Foundation and ALL European Academies (ALLEA)), and to which the HKU Policy on Research Integrity makes reference in Section 2) defines plagiarism in Section 2.2.4 ('Integrity in science and scholarship: misconduct') as: "the appropriation of another person's ideas, research results or words without giving appropriate credit. The precise wording of an idea or explanation or illustrative material (such as original figures and photographs, as well as lengthy tables) in textbooks or

How do you agree on authorship with fellow researchers?

Prof. Mark Israel (Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services) has kindly given permission for this hypothetical case study to be reproduced. You have been invited to join a multinational, multidisciplinary U21 collaborative team looking at the impact of Free Trade Agreements on the working practices of lawyers. While the project is being established, the team start to allocate responsibility for possible research outputs. Various suggestions are made about who should be authors. You hear the following comments: * In my discipline, the whole research team

Should students offer co-authorship to their supervisors?

Prof. Mark Israel (Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services) has kindly given permission for this hypothetical case study to be reproduced. Wing Hong is a PhD student. Following a suggestion from his supervisor, Maggy, he writes an article for publication. Maggy provides extensive comments. The article is accepted subject to revision and, again, Maggy provides comments and hands over a draft of an article she is writing. Wing Hong uses material from this article and offers Maggy co-authorship. Should she accept? Wing Hong's second supervisor,

Legitimate authorship – a survey of educational researchers in Hong Kong

Professor Bruce Macfarlane conducted research into the perceptions among educational researchers in Hong Kong of the ethics of multiple authorship (namely what constitutes legitimate authorship). In October/November 2014, a link to an online questionnaire was sent by e-mail to academic staff with professorial and research track positions in Schools or Faculties of Education in Hong Kong. 108 responses were collected, representing a response rate of 36.1% of the 299 education academics employed in Schools or Faculties of Education in Hong Kong. Case studies in the

What constitutes authorship – a COPE case study

One case study from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website (http://publicationethics.org/case/what-constitutes-authorship):   Author X submitted a paper to another journal, and included author Y, a student in the same institute, as a courtesy. Author Y had drawn two figures for the paper and discussed some of the observations (all made by author X) with author X but the paper did not deal with the thesis research of author Y. After the original paper was returned, requiring extensive revisions, author X revised the paper and

References on Authorship

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has published a Discussion Document titled 'What constitutes authorship?' drawing upon a variety of sources: http://publicationethics.org/files/Authorship_DiscussionDocument.pdf The COPE Discussion Document recognises that authorship in the legal discipline is: still very much a product of the writing process, and usually by a single individual. Any other form of contribution such as generation of ideas, commenting on a draft, or technical assistance is listed in the Acknowledgments. Traditions in the humanities also differ from some disciplines in the social and natural

ICMJE Recommendations: Authorship Criteria

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations list 4 criteria for authorship (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html): 1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND 2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND 3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND 4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part