Fraud and plagiarisim in school and career

Self-reported cheating among medical students: An alarming finding in a cross-sectional study from Saudi Arabia

Academic misconduct/dishonesty has become widespread behavior among many university students across the globe, and medical education is not an exception. Until recently, few efforts have been made to study the dishonest behavior in Middle-Eastern universities. This study examined the prevalence and predisposing factors of cheating among medical students in Saudi Arabia and suggests suitable preventive measures. A cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted at a government medical college during the 2014–2015 academic year. The response rate was 58.5% (421/720). The overall cheating behavior practiced by the participants was 29%, predominantly by male students. High GPA scoring students were the least likely to cheat. The participants living with their families were more likely to cheat compared to those who were living apart from their families. The reasons participants gave to justify their cheating behavior included getting better grades, passing the course, and lacking preparation while still recognizing that cheating is a ‘mistake.’ Overall, significant academic misconduct concerning cheating was found among the Saudi medical students; this misconduct is alarming in a reputable government institution. The implementation of strict punishments, requiring ethical courses and creating ethical awareness by exploiting the potential of Islamic religious belief might help to control this problem.

Text recycling in health sciences research literature: a rhetorical perspective

The past few years have seen a steady rise in the number of health science journals using plagiarism detection software to screen submitted manuscripts. While there is widespread agreement about the need to guard against plagiarism and duplicate publication, the use of such tools has sparked debate about text recycling—the reuse of material from one’s prior publications in a new manuscript. Many who have published on the topic consider all uses of text recycling anathema. Others argue that some uses of recycling are unavoidable and sometimes even beneficial for readers. Unfortunately, much of this discourse now merely repeats dogmatic assertions. I argue that progress can be made by acknowledging three points: First, citation standards for research writing in the health sciences will not mirror those of the humanities. Second, while it is impossible to draw a definitive line between appropriate and inappropriate uses of text recycling, some uses of the practice lie clearly on the legitimate side. Third, the needs of editors for information regarding recycled text are different from those of readers. Ultimately, calls for rewording and citation as alternatives or fixes for text recycling are unlikely to prove satisfactory to either readers or editors.

A response to this article can be found using the following link: http://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-017-0026-y.