Academic Integrity & Ethics

This module equips postgraduate scholars with the norms, codes and reasoning skills that govern responsible conduct of research and scholarly writing. Learners examine the spectrum of research misconduct, from fabrication and falsification to subtler forms of plagiarism, authorship abuse and conflicts of interest. The course applies ICMJE, COPE, UKRIO, Vancouver and Singapore Statement frameworks to realistic scenarios. By the end students can diagnose integrity breaches, cite correctly, obtain informed consent and navigate peer review, open science and retraction without harming the record.

Learning Outcomes

Define the FFP triad of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism and recognise their boundary cases.

Distinguish mosaic, patchwork, verbatim and self-plagiarism and apply the paraphrase-and-cite rule.

Apply ICMJE authorship criteria to resolve ghost, guest and gift authorship disputes.

Evaluate informed consent, confidentiality and data-protection obligations in research with human participants.

Analyse conflicts of interest and recommend declaration, management or recusal in context.

Appraise peer-review ethics including confidentiality, timeliness, bias and competing-reviewer scenarios.

Justify open-science practices (preregistration, data sharing, FAIR, preprints) against competing values.

Design a retraction or correction response that preserves the scholarly record.

Topics Covered

The FFP triad: fabrication, falsification, plagiarism

Mosaic, patchwork, verbatim and paraphrase plagiarism

Self-plagiarism, text recycling and salami publication

Paraphrasing well: structural change plus citation

ICMJE authorship criteria and contributorship (CRediT)

Ghost, guest, gift and honorary authorship

Fabrication versus honest error; image manipulation thresholds

Informed consent, assent and vulnerable populations

Confidentiality, anonymisation and GDPR in research data

Conflicts of interest: financial, intellectual, personal

Peer-review ethics (COPE), confidentiality and competing reviewers

Open science: preregistration, FAIR data, preprints, open access

Retraction, correction and expressions of concern

Research-ethics committees, IRBs and the Declaration of Helsinki

AI-assisted writing: attribution, hallucination and disclosure

Skills Developed

Citation discipline Ethical reasoning Authorship negotiation Consent-form drafting Conflict-of-interest disclosure Peer-review conduct Preregistration Retraction handling Image-integrity screening

Suggested Resources

{'title': 'On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research', 'author': 'National Academy of Sciences', 'source': 'National Academies Press, 2009, 3rd edition'}

{'title': 'Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals', 'author': 'International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)', 'source': 'ICMJE, 2024 update'}

{'title': 'COPE Core Practices and Flowcharts', 'author': 'Committee on Publication Ethics', 'source': 'publicationethics.org, 2022'}

{'title': 'The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity', 'author': 'World Conference on Research Integrity', 'source': 'WCRI, 2010'}

{'title': 'UKRIO Code of Practice for Research', 'author': 'UK Research Integrity Office', 'source': 'UKRIO, 2024 edition'}

{'title': 'Doing Honest Work in College', 'author': 'Charles Lipson', 'source': 'University of Chicago Press, 2008, 2nd edition'}

{'title': 'Stealing the Gold: A Celebration of the Pleasures and Perils of Scientific Writing', 'author': 'Nicholas J. Higham', 'source': 'SIAM, 2019'}

Assessment

An integrity portfolio: case analyses, a paraphrase exercise, an authorship-dispute memo, a conflict-of-interest declaration and a reflective essay.

Component20%

Component25%

Component15%

Component20%

Practice bank: 200 MCQs · Timed mock & self-paced modes

Start Practice →