Working Policy 2:158:2-6 covers ethical scholarly conduct.
Ethics in Academic Freedom (2:158:2)
The faculty member must maintain high standards of truthfulness, decency, and moral integrity. He/she must not invoke the protection of academic freedom or give counsel in areas beyond his/her competence as a scholar (see policy #2:159).
While the faculty member may uninhibitedly investigate and research any matter within one’s discipline or germane to it, the faculty member must recognize the responsibilities that govern who are accorded this freedom (see policies #2:158:2-4 and Appendix 2-B).
Ethics in Scholarly Endeavor (2:158:3)
Faculty are expected to adhere to high ethical standards in the conduct of research, scholarly publication, and other scholarly endeavors. Clearly formulated policies and procedures affirm and safeguard these standards of ethical conduct. Violations of ethical conduct such as academic fraud, academic misconduct, plagiarism and conflict of interest as defined below in policies #2:158:3:1-4 are subject to university investigation, censure and discipline.
Definition of Research Misconduct (2:158:3:1)
Research misconduct has been defined by the federal government (Part 689, Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations B Public Welfare) to mean: fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, carrying out, or reporting the results of research.
Definition of Retaliation- Academic Misconduct
Any adverse action or known threat of any kind against a person who reported or provided information about suspected or alleged research or academic misconduct… Failure to comply with Federal requirements for the protection of researchers, human subjects, or the public or for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals; or failure to meet other material legal requirements governing research will also be defined as retaliation and academic misconduct.
Definition of Academic Fraud (2:158:3:2)
Fraud is a serious threat to the intellectual integrity of a university. It is a form of cheating or dishonesty, false citation, false data, or multiple submission of work previously submitted at this or another other institution. It is not honest error or poor scholarship: it is intentional deception. Allegations of fraud therefore involve the intent and motive of the accused.
Fraud has been specifically defined by the Association of American Colleges and Universities as: (1) falsification of data ranging from fabrication to deceptively selective reporting, including the purposeful omission of conflicting data with the intent to falsify results; (2) plagiarism, the representation of someone else’s work as one’s own (see policy #3:158:3:4); and (3) misappropriation of others’ ideas; the unauthorized use of privileged information however obtained (such as violation of confidentiality from a peer review).
Faculty members found to have committed fraud in scholarly endeavors become liable to a full range of discipline, including termination for unfitness (see policy #2:175:3).
Definition of Conflict of Interest in Research (2:158:3:3)
Conflict of interest in research arises when a faculty member’s research conduct, research findings and/or reporting are influenced by private financial interests or nepotism interests, or situations in which monetary or personal considerations may compromise professional judgement in conducting or reporting research (see also policy #2:115).
The university maintains objectivity in research by ensuring that the design, conduct, or reporting of research is not biased by any conflicting financial interest of investigators employed by the university who are responsible for the research in accord with the provisions of PHS regulations 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart F, and 45 CFR Part 94.
Standards defining conflict of interest are detailed in the Andrews University Scholarly Research Handbook. Applicants for extramural funds are required to sign a statement that no conflict of interest exists.
Definition of Plagiarism (2:158:3:4)
Plagiarism, the act of representing another person’s work or ideas as one’s own, is a serious form of academic dishonesty for which a faculty member’s employment may be terminated.
For written material, Andrews University expects faculty to respect the intellectual property rights of others. The university endorses the following requirements of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th Ed., 348-350, 387-396. For current information on Ethical Principles relevant to publishing, visit the American Psychological Association web site http://www.apastyle.org/manual/index.aspx.
Quotation marks should be used to indicate the exact words of another.
Summarizing a passage or rearranging the order of a sentence and changing some of the words is paraphrasing. Each time a source is paraphrased, a credit for the source needs to be included in the text.
Substantial portions or elements of another’s work or data should not be presented as one’s own, even if the other work or data source is cited occasionally.
Faculty members who in the presentation or distribution or publication of written material in their own name neglect to specifically or generally acknowledge their indebtedness to sources used shall be guilty of plagiarism and liable to discipline (see also policy #2:445).
Positive Environment for Ethical Scholarly Conduct (2:158:4)
The university seeks to provide an environment that promotes ethical integrity by encouraging open discussions and communication of research findings, submission of work for peer review, commitment to self-regulation, emphasis on quality rather than quantity, collaboration and teamwork, maintenance of non-competitive professional relationships, generosity in recognizing the accomplishments and contributions of others. The university requires adherence to well-designed protocols that protect research subjects and safeguard against carelessness before and after scholarly activities. (See also Appendix 2-C).
Research on Human Subjects (2:158:4:1)
Plans for research involving human subjects as defined in 45 CFR 46.102 must be reviewed and approved by the Andrews University Institutional Review Board (IRB). The conditions under which data are collected must meet the ethical and legal requirements set forth in the Andrews University IRB written procedures (Handbook), an assurance of Compliance with the HHS Regulations for Protection of Human Subjects Research. No data may be collected from human subjects before written notification of approval is received by the investigator. Individuals undertaking studies with human subjects without such approval are not covered by university liability protection and may be subject to discipline by the university.
Research on Animal Subjects (2:158:4:2)
Research on non-human living animals is subject to the review and approval of the protocol by the Andrews University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Andrews University provides assurance that all research involving animals is conducted in accordance with the NIH guidelines for the Care and Use of animals. This committee uses ethical and regulatory standards set by state and federal agencies to determine that proposed research requires the use of living animals, that such animals will be humanely cared for, and that pain and suffering entailed in the experiment are minimized. Animals may not be purchased for research or teaching, nor experiments begun, until the protocol, describing their use has been approved by the committee.
Primary Responsibility for Ethical Scholarly Conduct (2:158:5)
Primary responsibility for the ethical conduct of a faculty member rests with the individual faculty member. The principal investigator of a research project shares in this primary responsibility for the ethical conduct of all research activities with which he/she is associated including the authenticity of the research conducted and published in his/her name. He/she should on behalf of the university maintain a high standard of intellectual honesty in his/her environment, give adequate supervision for all staff and students associated with his/her research project and provide due credit to all investigators and associates who have contributed to the work. Such contributors and collaborators, on the other hand, bear their own ethical responsibility for co-authored work and should be prepared to support and defend their conclusions.
Safeguards for Ethical Scholarly Endeavor (2:158:6)
To fulfill its own obligations to promote ethical scholarly endeavors, the university makes two requirements: