SPEC Kit 336: Responsible Conduct of Research Training · 85
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Guidelines for Avoiding Plagiarism, Self-Plagiarism, and Questionable Writing Practices
http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/msl/subjects/images/plagiarism_26_guidelines.pdf
cited at some point in the manuscript. In
addition, authors should also ensure that all
elements of a citation (e.g., spelling of authors’
names, volume number of journal, pagination)
are derived directly from the original paper,
rather than from a citation that appears on a
secondary source. Finally, authors should
ensure that credit is given to those authors who
first reported the phenomenon being studied.
Guideline 15: The references used in a paper
should only be those that are directly related to
its contents. The intentional inclusion of
references of questionable relevance for
purposes of manipulating a journal’s or a paper’s
impact factor or a paper’s chances of
acceptance is an unacceptable practice.
Guideline 16: Authors should follow a simple
rule: Strive to obtain the actual published paper.
When the published paper cannot be obtained,
cite the specific version of the material being
used, whether it is conference presentation,
abstract, or an unpublished manuscript.
Guideline 17: Generally, when describing
others’ work, do not rely on a secondary
summary of that work. It is a deceptive practice,
reflects poor scholarly standards, and can lead
to a flawed description of the work described.
Always consult the primary literature.
Guideline 18: If an author must rely on a
secondary source (e.g., textbook) to describe
the contents of a primary source (e.g., an
empirical journal article), s/he should consult
writing manuals used in her discipline to follow
the proper convention to do so. Above all,
always indicate the actual source of the
information being reported.
Guideline 19: When borrowing heavily from a
source, authors should always craft their writing
in a way that makes clear to readers, which
ideas are their own and which are derived from
the source being consulted.
Guideline 20: When appropriate, authors have
an ethical responsibility to report evidence that
runs contrary to their point of view. In addition,
evidence that we use in support of our position
must be methodologically sound. When citing
supporting studies that suffer from
methodological, statistical, or other types of
shortcomings, such flaws must be pointed out to
the reader.
Guideline 21: Authors have an ethical obligation
to report all aspects of the study that may impact
the independent replicability of their research.
Guideline 22: Researchers have an ethical
responsibility to report the results of their studies
according to their a priori plans. Any post hoc
manipulations that may alter the results initially
obtained, such as the elimination of outliers or
the use of alternative statistical techniques, must
be clearly described along with an acceptable
rationale for using such techniques.
Guideline 23: Authorship determination should
be discussed prior to commencing a research
collaboration and should be based on
established guidelines, such as those of the
International Committee of Medical Journal
Editors.
Guideline 24: Only those individuals who have
made substantive contributions to a project merit
authorship in a paper.
Guideline 25: Faculty-student collaborations
should follow the same criteria to establish
authorship. Mentors must exercise great care to
neither award authorship to students whose
contributions do not merit it, nor to deny
authorship and due credit to the work of
students.
Guideline 26: Academic or professional ghost
authorship in the sciences is ethically
unacceptable.
Guidelines and complete module are available at:
http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/plagiarism/
and linked from the Research Misconduct /Plagiarism tab at: http://guides.uflib.ufl.edu/stemrcr/
Previous Page Next Page