Olena
Knysh
State
Agrarian and Engineering University in Podilya, Ukraine
E-mail: elenaknysh55@gmail.com
Oksana
Liaska
State
Agrarian and Engineering University in Podilya, Ukraine
E-mail: oksanaliaska@gmail.com
Iryna
Bielinska
Ternopil
National Economic University, Ukraine
E-mail: belinskaira@ukr.net
Iryna
Levandovska
Ternopil
National Economic University, Ukraine
E-mail: ira.ev72@gmail.com
Olena
Vasylieva
State
Agrarian and Engineering University in Podilya, Ukraine
E-mail: asodsm@ukr.net
Submission: 12/13/2019
Accept: 01/07/2020
ABSTRACT
In recent years, much work has been done to promote integrity in academic community in Ukraine. Still, educational interventions introduced to the local level have not yet become an effective instrument to foster integrity in academia. Current research aims to discuss the key motivational factors that influence the effectiveness of integrity trainings for early-career researchers at Ukrainian universities in order to identify the possible gaps during implementation of research integrity education at the institutional level; highlights the role education plays in fostering research integrity; explores the key factors that influence early-career researcher’s professional development; proposes the possible content of integrity workshop for early-career researchers; analyzes the interview findings to better understand the impact of education interventions on research behavior; and offers recommendations that could help the academic community develop educational content that increases awareness on research misconduct and detrimental practices. The article is based on the experience of conducting the research integrity workshops at the regional institution of higher education. Data was carried out as qualitative face-to-face semi-structured interviews to learn about the sources of knowledge on research integrity. The results of the study have shown that integrity trainings at Ukrainian higher education institutions goal not only to introduce researchers to integrity knowledge, but also to engage them in discussion about responsibility in science. The findings of the study may help to identify key factors that influence the effectiveness of research integrity trainings and develop effective tools to promote research integrity at the Ukrainian higher educational institutions.
Keywords: academic integrity; research integrity; integrity education; motivation; research community; research behavior; responsible conduct of research; research misconduct.
1.
INTRODUCTION
In
recent years, academic community in Ukraine has been influenced by significant
reform implementations, defined in the Law of Ukraine on Higher Education and
the Law on Science and Scientific and Technology Activities. This new phase,
targeted at “systematic modernization of the national education framework”
(NAESU, 2017), is characterized by a convincing increase in attention to the
quality of research. Governmental participation in promoting international
standards of research and publishing has also increased, influencing all the
stakeholders of the research industry.
Nevertheless,
in many cases these efforts have also boosted bad practices. It is important to
keep in mind that research integrity in Ukraine has taken a wide discussion in
conditions when financing of science is far not enough. These issues are even
more visible at regional institutions of higher education. Decrease in student
population, limited governmental funding for science, combined with regulatory
government policy and hyper attention to science metrics, provokes university
management for pressing academic stuff to publish.
As a
consequence, members of the research community are aware about ‘easy ways’ to
deal with demands of the authorities and promote their careers. Therefore,
researchers are more concern about not to be caught than to conduct the
research properly. There is no empirical data on what amount of papers
published by Ukrainian researchers contains plagiarized information or is based
on non-valid data. But there is a strong concern in the society that whole
scientific enterprise suffers from corruption and absence of science as it is.
Taking
into account the above mentioned, the area of specific interest is the
implementation of integrity education practices at the institutions of higher
education in Ukraine. To identify the possible gaps during implementation of
research integrity education at the local level, we analyzed the experience of
conducting academic writing and research integrity workshop at regional
institution of higher education.
In
this article, we will (1) explore the key factors that
influence early-career researcher’s professional development, (2)
highlight the role education plays in fostering research integrity, (3) propose
the possible content of integrity workshop for early-career researchers, (4)
analyze the interview findings to better understand the impact of education
interventions on research behavior, (5) and offer recommendations that could
help the academic community develop educational content that increases
awareness on research misconduct and detrimental practices.
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.
Background
Today
in Ukraine, strengthening the research potential is recognized as an
inalienable component of quality assurance and enhancement in higher education.
At the same time, there is a threatening tendency of outflow of qualified
scientific stuff from Ukraine. In the Ukrainian academic community, population
of scholars under 35 of age is steadily declining and barely reaches 20% of the
total cohort. In particular, recent polls of early-career scholars at the
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine have revealed that 42.2% of respondent’s
intent to migrate abroad (ZHABIN; KAZMINA, 2017).
The
study on the dynamics of human potential in Ukrainian science (POPOVYCH;
KOSTRYTSA, 2017) has shown that about 29% of researchers aged 35-39 left
science during the period from 2011 to 2015. In overall terms, early-career
researchers lose interest in an academic career, not willing to deal with lack
of financing, corruption, negative institutional climate, and integrity
violations.
Researchers
distinguish widely spread practices of research misconduct in Ukrainian
scientific society. The most common among them are plagiarism, falsification of
experimental data, detrimental authorship, approving of research proposals with
low novelty, corruption in reviewing and approving grant proposals.
Nevertheless, according to recent reports plagiarism is still seen as “the only
form of academic dishonesty specifically referred to in legislation” (OECD,
2017). In particular, the Law on Higher Education declares an obligation for
higher education institutions to establish “an effective system to prevent and
disclose academic plagiarism in research and scientific works produced by the
faculty and learners” (Law of Ukraine on Higher Education, 2014 cited in OECD,
2017).
The
key factors affecting integrity and provoking research misconduct are also
identified in literature. Among them complicated hierarchy of academic titles
and positions at academia, absence of necessary experimental and laboratory
equipment, commercialization, not transparent stuff recruitment system, bureaucracy,
and increased attention to scientific metric are recognized (DEHTIARIOVA, 2016:
207). As an example, a key motivation factor for recent Ph.D. holders to
develop them researches is to promote their academic careers and follow the
requirements of the government.
On
the one hand, it motivates them for further professional development, but on
the other hand, pressing to publish provokes further manipulations, as well as
corrupt practices in reviewing and publishing. Thus, the mandatory requirements
to publish papers for students and faculty stuff without the appropriate
expertise, as well as time and resources for conducting high quality research,
are recognized as a “compulsion to research misconduct” (YEHORCHENKO;
SEREBRIAKOV, 2018).
Finikov
(2016) emphasizes that “deviant behavior among actors and stakeholders in
science” has become the basement of entire culture of imitation of science, or
so called ‘anticulture’ in academia.
Ukrainian
scientific society has articulated a demand for effective mechanisms for
supporting researchers’ professional development. However, in order to ensure high quality of
science, institutions and societies have to provide instruction not only on the
methodology of scientific research. As Yaroshenko (2011) mentions that
development of the research competence as an important part of the scholar’s
professional activity only works if the value component is there. Value
orientation is recognized as the main component of the research competence.
In
other words, instruction has to cover the most critical issues of research
integrity and responsible conduct of research developing awareness of the
significance of scientific activity, and responsibility for maintaining high
standards of science. In this context, a number of issues arise. What are the
ways of creating conditions for developing the behavioral competences of the
researcher? What is the role of educational initiatives in fostering the
culture of research integrity? How effective these procedures may be for
motivating early-career scholars for responsible conducting of research?
2.2.
Educational Interventions
Education
in responsible conduct of research is recognized as the key mechanism for
addressing and preventing of misconduct and detrimental practices. Instruction
and training are considered as the most effective tools for fostering integrity
within institution. At the same time integrity education “is affected by the
context in which that education exists” (NASEM, 2016). With a goal to foster
integrity in research and publishing, all the stakeholders in research
enterprise have to develop and assess effective education that supports the
culture of responsible science. Research institutions are recognized as
directly responsible for providing education and training efforts that support
a culture of integrity (NASEM, 2016).
According
to the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA, 2017), research
institutions and organizations are responsible for ensuring appropriate
training in research integrity and ethics for the stuff across the entire
career pass. Moreover, the degree to which
academic, social, and governmental institutions promote ethical engagement has
an important effect on whether and how research integrity is taught formally
(HEITMAN et al., 2016).
At
the same time, the efficiency of various educational interventions in efforts
to promote integrity is widely discussed. Literature on this topic offers
strong arguments for research education and training as an important element of
research enterprise. Responsible research training is recognized as an integral
part of research since it aims to ensure that “knowledge, skills, and awareness
essential to responsible research are intentionally, explicitly, and accurately
conveyed” (NASEM, 2016).
Resnik (2015) suggests that deviations from norms of responsible science
may occur either because of ignorance, or luck of knowledge and
ill-preparedness of the researchers. The author states that “in both cases
research integrity education may be useful, providing better understanding of
ethical standards, policies and issues”. Moreover, knowledge of professional
standards and responsibility for research misconduct are essential components
of research integrity culture.
There is no consensus on the best instruments for research integrity
education. In different countries it may be a concern of national policy, with
obligatory training for students on all the levels of education,
promoting of institutional policies, or with no articulated policy at all. But
the reality is that research misconduct appears to stay a serious issue for all
the societies mentioned. Therefore, it provokes vide discussion on the
effectiveness of any kinds of educational interventions on research integrity. Kalichman
(2012) recognizes integrity education an essential tool for increasing
knowledge of issues and practices, developing skills of responsible decision
making, as well as forming attitudes toward open communication in science.
Israel
et al. (2014) links integrity education with institutional policy in promoting
responsible conduct of research. Furthermore, integrity policies need to
function effectively within an educational environment “to frame the cognition
knowledge about integrity within personnel affective values and attitudes” (
Ukraine isn’t an exception in diversity of voices in public discussion
on the problem or the issues of integrity education implementation. On the one hand, work in a field of
promotion research integrity has facilitated development of strong societies
run by a common purpose to raise the quality of science in Ukraine. A number of projects and initiatives to promote research integrity have been initiated by international
agencies, organizations and societies. On the other hand, these initiatives haven’t become of national policy on
research integrity education so far. In some cases, those initiatives
are used to declare institutions’ commitment to academic integrity, and have
become nothing more than just a trend.
3.
METHODOLOGY
The
article is based on the data obtained during training activities organized by
the Early-Career Researchers Council at the State Agrarian and Engineering
University in Podilya, a middle-sized regional
higher education institution specializing on agriculture and rural development.
The participants in the study are recent Ph.D. holders and doctoral students,
attending trainings on research integrity at university. The fields they
represent include agriculture, veterinary science, engineering, economics, and
vocational education.
First of all, we conducted pre-workshop survey for early-career
researchers to discover about what gaps in research integrity and research
writing knowledge they are concerned the most. Participants mentioned that the
key factor that influences their research behavior and may cause cases of
questionable practices is the lack of knowledge on responsible conduct of
research, as well as international publishing standards. Majority of doctoral students
agreed that they need more professional support on such critical issues as
academic writing; international standards of research reporting; publishing in
peer-review journals.
Analysis of early career researchers’ perception of research integrity
also illustrates the complexity of the concept itself. A majority of
interviewees agreed that research integrity awareness is an important element
of their professional development. They also admitted that during their first
steps in science, supervisors were the main, and sometimes the only, sources of
knowledge on research ethics. They also mentioned they still receive rather low
support for the research integrity competence development at institutional level.
At
the same time, the development of the workshop program included an analysis of
the content and methods of carrying out
trainings on academic writing and integrity, which were set up during 2016-2019
by such organizations as USAID (Support Academic Integrity in Ukraine Project),
British Council, Ukrainian Educational Research Association, Ukrainian
Association of Cognitive Linguistics and Poetics etc. As a result, workshop
program included the following components:
· International standards of academic writing;
· Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and improper citation;
· International databases of peer-review literature;
· Publishing in peer-review journals;
· Opportunities for international academic mobility for early-career
researchers;
· Proposal-writing.
The
main goal of the training was to engage early-career researchers with academic
integrity issues that go beyond formal discussions, and to provide them with
tools for improving research presentation competence. Training activities were
targeted on developing academic writing skills, knowledge on referencing and citation,
research proposing and publishing, authorship property basics etc.
Despite
positive feedback from all the participants, problems arisen in a course of
delivering and implementation trainings revealed a number of challenges. The
workshop was aimed at doctoral students and early-career researchers. Though,
workshop audience mainly consisted of recent Ph.D. holders and mid-career
researchers. They were mostly interested in particular aspects of the workshop,
such as publishing in peer-review journals process, or international study
programs application procedures.
The
participants used this event to get more information about opportunities for
publishing, or cooperating with international educational projects. The place
for sharing experience was created, but the integrity component was actually
lost. It is worth to mention that ethics itself have barely appeared on a site
of a conversation on research integrity. Participants were more concerned about
how not to cross a line between questionable practices and research misconduct.
To
understand motivational factors that influence attitudes to trainings on
research integrity, and, therefore, their impact on research behavior of
early-career researchers we conducted interviews. Data was carried out as qualitative
face-to-face semi-structured interviews to learn about the sources of knowledge
about academic standards and academic integrity, as well as the tools for
academic writing competence obtaining; the help postgraduate students receive
from supervisors during their research work; and the strategies they use to get
their research findings published.
The
participants were also asked to introduce their own activity that may be used
during the next training session. Data analysis included highlighting significant
statements that provide an understanding of early career researchers’ attitudes
towards interconnections between academic integrity training, and actual
research behavior. We tried to identify
main issues from the point of view of early-career researchers, since they have
to survive through this transitional period for integrity culture development.
4.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1.
Research Integrity Training and its
Impact on Early-Career Academics’ Research Behavior
Doctoral
students and recent Ph.D. holders are more active in publishing, either due to
the requirement to introduce the results of their research to wider audience,
or to the need to promote career. Sometimes it may provoke a desire to satisfy
government or institutional requirements by any cost. Therefore, measures to
encourage professional development of junior academic stuff may impact
integrity negatively. Subsequently, qualitative approach in faculty assessment
may provoke misconduct practices, such as fabrication of research results,
plagiarism, bribing journal articles reviewers, cooperation with predatory
journals, participation in fake conferences, and so called ‘scientific
tourism’.
Today
in Ukraine, international organizations and professional societies are becoming
one of the key actors in promoting international standards of research
integrity. These organizations have initiated a number of academic writing and
research integrity trainings in Ukraine, engaging researchers who have already
felt the need for acquiring knowledge in research writing and proposing. One
the one hand, most of the participants at these events is highly motivated to
develop their skills. On the other hand, academic societies and other
professional communities do not depend on quantitative performance indicators,
as much as universities do. As a
consequence, these factors generate an interest in the quality and integrity of
research work. However, these workshops mostly use the training-for-trainers
approach. One of the key indicators of the workshop effectiveness is further
sharing of the best practices at the local level. In our opinion, major
weaknesses of such events organization can be identified at the institutional
level.
During
the interview, participants often explained the difficulties with presenting
their research findings by a general lack of knowledge on standards of research
reporting and publishing:
· Sometimes, I do not understand what
exactly they want from us. We are talking about the requirements for
publications, but nobody actually explains how to meet them. (Doctoral student,
interview)
· I would really like it if
international standards of research writing were initially introduced to us
during our training. It is hard to break through and publish in journals with much
stricter requirements. (Doctoral student, interview)
Some
of the participants complained they hadn’t developed academic writing skills
during their study:
· During our study, too little attention is paid to the development of
academic writing skills, or the ability to avoid plagiarism. For the most part,
it is an independent experience gained from own mistakes (Doctoral student,
interview);
· For years, I’ve been taught how to carry out research, but I have got
almost no knowledge on the scientific paper design (Postdoctoral researcher,
interview);
· Young researchers should take advantage of the opportunity to take on
the experiences of more experienced colleagues. At one time I really suffered
from lack of necessary information (Professor, interview);
· Why is it so difficult for us in Ukrainian science to get rid of a
phenomenon like plagiarism? Maybe it’s because sometimes we don’t even know
that we plagiarize. Sometimes our opinion needs an authoritative confirmation.
But sometimes we forget to write from ourselves. (Doctoral student,
interview).
The
interview also demonstrated that, having no adequate source of knowledge on
research writing, early-career researchers practice ad-hoc approach, using any
sources they can accesses:
· Usually I just search on other researchers’ papers and use them as an
example. (Postdoctoral researcher, interview);
· I haven’t ever participated [in academic writing trainings]. I’ve been
getting knowledge I need here and there. (Doctoral student, interview).
They
also saw the source of the problem lying in poor knowledge on publishing in
peer-review journals process. In some cases, they also mentioned fair as a key
factor:
· I do not have the experience of publishing [in peer-review journals].
The main obstacle is fear. Why there is no experience, because there is fear.
It's scary not to fit in (Doctoral student, interview);
· For some reason we are afraid to be ourselves, so many thefts. And this
is not because we are unable to write something, but because we simply ban
ourselves (Doctoral student, interview).
Poor
knowledge breeds high tolerance to questionable practices in research, and, as
a consequence, the search for easy ways:
· It is extremely expensive to publish in journals listed in major
databases. The only way for me to get published, is to work with agents.
(Postdoctoral researcher, interview);
· I had an experience of submitting a paper to journal through peer-review
procedure. But I don’t believe that this process isn’t corrupted. (Postdoctoral
researcher, interview);
· Many of my colleagues choose scientific tourism for themselves as the
easiest way to obtain an internship certificate. In fact, other paths for most
academics are closed. (Postdoctoral researcher, interview).
Interesting
in this regard is the perception of such a requirement for researcher, such as
knowledge of English or other official languages of the European Union at a
level not lower than upper intermediate level.
It will be easier for me to publish 10 articles in respected journals than studying English at a sufficient level to complete an independent exam. Certification centers will require bribe anyway. (Postdoctoral researcher, interview).
The
majority of interview participants have mentioned that the only reliable source
on research integrity knowledge for them stays the personality of scientific
supervisor. Supervisor introduces a
trainee to requirements and standards, becoming a role model:
· Essentially, doctoral students develop copying their supervisors’ habits.
So it is important to understand what a correct way of behavior is.
(Postdoctoral researcher, interview).
· I was lucky because I’ve got great scientific supervisor. She provided
me with access to literature, shared her own materials. But if we talk about
the system itself, without vise scientific supervisor, I would be deprived of
these resources. (Doctoral student, interview).
· Personal qualities and talents are important, but the support of a
scientific supervisor is decisive. (Doctoral student, interview).
Talking
about seminars and courses on academic writing and publishing, participants
mostly consider them as community-building initiatives:
· When we are getting together, we form a general behavior of the
community. We begin to share values. (Postdoctoral researcher, interview)
In
this context, the concept of ‘openness’ was mentioned for several times:
· We suffer from lack of openness. We always count down a lot of steps in
advance, predicting what may or may not happen. We try to take into account all
the risks. We are closed-minded people. (Postdoctoral researcher, interview);
· It is necessary to show, on your own example, what situations may arise.
We do not share information. We achieve something and believe: if I have gone
this way, so let others go, getting hard knocks. We need to share as much as we
can, to help others avoid our own mistakes. (Postdoctoral researcher,
interview).
The
key reason for participation is not to be informed about various aspects of
research conducting and publishing, but to find a space for discussing the most
disturbing issues and sharing best practices:
· These events are useful. We start thinking. Usually, we retreat into
ourselves. And when you come to such events, you begin to develop all-round and
reflect on things that you have not paid so much attention to. You begin to
filter yourself through the prism of the information you receive. It means to
feel who you really are. (Postdoctoral researcher, interview).
The
attitude of many informants was that they have a deep need for quality training
both on integrity, and academic writing and publishing. With no/poor
professional development opportunities within institutions researchers look for
various external recourses: seminar and courses provided by educational
agencies outside the institution; online courses; share practice with
colleagues (sometimes questionable). Still, they are more interested in
learning from personal experience of people that are in the same boat.
4.2.
Improving Research Integrity
Workshops Content
The
findings of the study proved the need for development effective tools to
promote research integrity at the Ukrainian educational institutions. The role
of education interventions is not only and not so much about familiarity with
the principles of integrity. The key point here is to convince the scientific
cohort of the greater effectiveness of responsible conduct of research.
Researchers often try to justify their non-honest behavior by pressure to
publish, luck of financing etc. Therefore, the training work must offer
adequate answers to each of these problems, as it is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary
of training content*
|
Problem |
Workshop content |
|
Lack
of financing |
Proposal
writing skills development |
|
Low
awareness of the consequences of research misconduct, high tolerance for
questionable practices |
Case-study
approach, demonstrating examples of research misconduct and questionable
practices, and discussing reputation risks or other consequences for further
career advancement |
|
Isolation,
lack of collaboration skills |
Team-building
activities, sharing best practices |
|
Strong
belief that there will always be those who bribe, fabricate, and plagiarize |
Case-study
approach, demonstrating the tools for identifying plagiarism and fabrication
in research |
|
Replication
of own research results |
Discussion
on the essence of self-plagiarism |
|
Deep
fear to publish in peer-review journals |
Role-playing
sessions introducing to peer-review process, with a goal to familiarize researchers
with peer-assessment process |
|
Lack
of knowledge on academic mobility opportunities |
Training
sessions on application writing, and searching for internship programs |
*Source:
authors (2019)
Questioning the effectiveness of research integrity education, some
researchers emphasize the role of the strategies that may be chosen (ANDERSON,
2007). Simulations, case analyses, role-playing and other active and
interactive strategies are recognized as more effective in promoting integrity
in research. Sharing personal experience in group and interaction with people
may be more effective than dry didactics. At the same time, instruction
materials have to be continuously updated and grounded in the reality of research
conducting and presenting, including questionable practices. Socialization in
research practices adherence to the highest standards of research integrity.
5.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In
fact, developing the content of integrity interventions for early-career
researchers, we risk touching just a tip of the iceberg. The problem of
research integrity is hidden much deeper. It starts with cheating during exams,
plagiarizing in student papers and course work.
The
practice of plagiarizing starts at school, when standard assignments and low
control provoke students not to spend their time completing their tasks
themselves. It would be naïve to expect
students who studied in academia with high tolerance to cheating on exams,
plagiarized assignments and bribery to understand the concept of academic
integrity later on. To create community of integrity, we have to provoke a
change of values within this community. This generation of young researchers
grew up in academic society with high tolerance to misconduct and questionable
practices. This generation has also
witnessed a sharp decline in the prestige of scientific work, and,
consequently, the quality of scientific research. But it depends on this
generation whether the Ukrainian science can escape from a deep crisis.
Some
gaps may be filled by introducing researchers to best practices of research
work. It is also important to give them proper training on research writing and
proposing. At the same time, they need to listen to people that have experience
in different aspects of research activity. Those who have already published in
peer-review journals, those who have already participated in international
projects and can show the benefits of such cooperation. It is important to find
such role-models inside the community. To introduce them to recourses on
research integrity will not be enough. Within community without clear
understanding of what is wrong and what is right information itself will never
become an instrument for shaping values.
So,
the goal of integrity trainings is not only to introduce researchers to
integrity knowledge, but also to engage them in discussion about responsibility
in science. That is why the role of education in ensuring research integrity in
the conditions of Ukrainian educational institutions is not only so much to
familiarize oneself with the principles of integrity, but to convince the
scientific cohort of the greater effectiveness of such an approach. Integrity
interventions may be difficult to implement in a community that has already
developed high tolerance to misconduct practices.
Integrity
values and ethical behavior is barely possible to teach neither to students,
nor to academic stuff. But the community may provide the researcher with
opportunities for developing skills that are essential for responsible conduct
of research. It may not directly influence behavior of faculties and doctoral
students. Though, it would be a strong sign of promotion integrity in academia.
It also engages researchers in discussion about academic integrity and
responsibility in science.
Research
findings may help to identify key factors that may influence the effectiveness
of research integrity trainings. It will explain possible solutions and
improvements to the model that we believe will make it more effective.
REFERENCES
ALLEA (2017) European Code of
Conduct for Research Integrity. Berlin: All European Academies.
ANDERSON, M. S.; HORN, A. S.;
RISBEY, K. R.; RONNING, E. A.; DE VRIES, R.; MARTINSON, B. C. (2007) What do mentoring
and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists'
misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine [e-journal], v.
82, n. 9, p. 853-860. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c.
DEHTIARIOVA, I. (2016) The
Impact of academic integrity on institutional practices of Ukrainian higher
education. In T. Finikov and A. Artyukhov (eds.) Academic honesty as the basis of sustainable development of the
University. Kyiv: Takson. p. 197-217.
FINIKOV, T. (2016) Academic integrity: global
context and national demand. In Finikov, T. and Artyukhov, A. (eds.) Academic honesty as the basis of sustainable
development of the University. Kyiv: Takson. p. 9-37.
HEITMAN, E.; LITEWKA, S.; VASCONCELOS, S. (2016) Education in Research
Integrity and Governance of Science in the United States, Argentina, and
Brazil. In: T. Bretag, ed. Handbook
of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore.
ISRAEL, M.; ALLEN, G.; THOMSON, C.
(2014) THE rise and much-sought demise of the adversarial culture in Australian
research ethics. Australasian
ethics network 2013 refereed conference proceedings. [pdf]. Available at:
<https://www.aenconference.com/uploads/AEN_Conference_2013_Proceedings.
pdf>. [Accessed 12 November 2019].
KALICHMAN, M. (2012) Why, what, and
how we should be teaching about research integrity. In MAYER, T.; STENECK, N.
H. eds. 2012. Promoting research integrity in a global
environment. Singapore: Imperial College Press/World Scientific
Publishing. p. 195–211.
NASEM (2017)
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Fostering Integrity in Research.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NAESU (2017) National Academy of
Educational Sciences of Ukraine. National
Report on the State and Prospects of Education Development in Ukraine. Kyiv: Pedahohichna Dumka.
OECD (2017) Reviews of Integrity in Education: Ukraine 2017, Paris: OECD
Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270664-en.
POPOVYCH, O.
S.; KOSTRYTSA, O. P. (2017) Restoring the Scientific Potential of Ukrainian
Science: Necessity and Real Prospects. Nauka innov., [e-journal] v. 13,
n. 4, p. 5-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/scin13.03.005.
RESNIK,
D. B. (2015) What is ethics in research
& why is it important. [online] Available at: <https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/-bioethics/whatis/index.cfm?links=false>
[Accessed 12 November 2019].
SHEPHARD,; ; . (2015) Teaching research
integrity in higher education: policy and strategy. Journal
of Higher Education Policy and Management, [e-journal] v. 37,
n. 6, p. 615-632. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1102823.
YEHORCHENKO, I.; SEREBRIAKOV, M.
(2018) Academic integrity:
Analytical report and recommendations. [pdf]. Available at:
<https://rpr.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Analitychna-zapyska-akademichna-dobrochesnist.pdf>
[Accessed 12 November 2018].
YAROSHENKO, O. (2017) Development of
the research competence of scientific and pedagogical stuff at universities in
the context of integration of higher education and science. In: O. Yaroshenko,
ed., 2011. Theory and technology of professional development of scientific
and pedagogical stuff at universities in the context of integration of higher
education and science. Kyiv: Institute of Higher Education of NAPS of
Ukraine. Ch. 1, p. 72-92.
ZHABIN, S.; KAZMINA, O. (2017) Young
Scientists: Social status and working conditions at the National Academy of
Sciences of Ukraine, [online] Available at: <https://commons.com.ua/uk/molodi-naukovci-ukrayini/>
[Accessed 12 November 2019].