Source: G. Stylianou - Writing for Computer Science, Justin Zobel Ethics

Source: G. Stylianou - Writing for Computer Science, Justin Zobel Introduction Science is built on trust Researchers (Scientists) are expected to be honest The major societies of science have codes of conduct that scientists are expected to adhere to – – Even senior academics have been sacked for offences committed many years earlier

Source: G. Stylianou - Writing for Computer Science, Justin Zobel Plagiarism Example – plagiarism.htmlhttp:// plagiarism.html Definition –The re-use in one-paper of material that has appeared in another, without appropriate acknowledgement. –It may involve ideas, illustrations, results, text or even whole papers.

Source: G. Stylianou - Writing for Computer Science, Justin Zobel Plagiarism Suppose you found a nice illustration in a book and want to use it in a paper –Copying it is plagiarism Suppose you found a paragraph in a reference you feel you cannot improve –Using it is plagiarism –Even close paraphrase is plagiarism

Source: G. Stylianou - Writing for Computer Science, Justin Zobel Example Suppose Barlman and Trey (2001) wrote –The impact of viruses has become a major issue in many large organizations, but most still rely on individual users maintaining virus definitions, with no internal firewalls to protect one user from another. However, any structure is only as strong as its weakest link; these organizations are highly vulnerable.

Source: G. Stylianou - Writing for Computer Science, Justin Zobel Example (cont.) [You wrote] –Viruses have become a major issue in many large organizations, but most still rely on individual users maintaining virus definitions, with no internal firewalls to protect one user from another. However, any structure is only as strong as its weakest link; these organizations are highly vulnerable. (Barlman and Trey 2001) It’s plagiarism. You provide a citation but it is not clear that it refers to the whole block of text Also, the wording has been copied

Source: G. Stylianou - Writing for Computer Science, Justin Zobel Example (cont.) As discussed by Barlman and Trey (2001), who investigated the impact of viruses in large organizations, “most still rely on individual users maintaining virus definitions, with no internal firewalls to protect one user from another. However, any structure is only as strong as its weakest link; these organizations are highly vulnerable.” [CORRECT CITATION] Barlman and Trey (2001) investigated the impact of viruses in large organizations. They found that organizations are vulnerable if individuals fail to keep virus definitions up to date, as internal firewalls are rare. [CORRECT CITATION]

Source: G. Stylianou - Writing for Computer Science, Justin Zobel Self-Plagiarism If you re-use your own text you are plagiarizing. Using the same text twice means you try to publish the same work twice. –There are rules for every conference for the work to be original Many think it’s acceptable to re-use the same background material in another paper.

Source: G. Stylianou - Writing for Computer Science, Justin Zobel Self-Plagiarism Arguments against: –If you are habit is copying the background in each paper, the material is likely to rapidly become stale –A high quality discussion of background, makes it easier for the paper to be published Publication of more than one paper based on the same results is prohibited Even if you publish like that, you create permanent records. Sooner or later you will be discovered.

Source: G. Stylianou - Writing for Computer Science, Justin Zobel Misrepresentation This is when a paper does not accurately reflect the outcomes that were observed or the contribution of previous research. When presenting results you are expected –to ensure they are accurate, –to describe any issues or limitations, –provide enough detail for reproduction or verification, –be fair in description of other work, –report negative and positive results, –ensure the statements are complete and accurate.

Source: G. Stylianou - Writing for Computer Science, Justin Zobel Authorship Deciding who has merited authorship of a paper can be a difficult and emotional issue A broadly accepted view is that each author must have made some significant contribution to the intellectual content of the paper So directed activities such as programming do not merit authorship, nor does proof-reading But participation in the conception, execution, or interpretation of the results up to some degree merit authorship.

Source: G. Stylianou - Writing for Computer Science, Justin Zobel Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest You need to respect each other’s privacy Access to somebody else’s data doesn’t mean you are allowed to use it or disclose these results to other people You must disclose your commercial relationships that may affect a paper When refereeing papers or grant proposals you must reveal any conflicts of interest Examples: papers by a recent advisor, student or co-author of the referee, paper replicating your current work, etc. In any case contact the editor ASAP.

Source: G. Stylianou - Writing for Computer Science, Justin Zobel Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Also, papers are submitted in confidence and are not in the public domain. –You are liable if research is released. Papers you are reviewing should not be shown to colleagues, except as part of the review process.

Source: G. Stylianou - Writing for Computer Science, Justin Zobel Ethics Checklist Is all text yours? Are you the copyright holder for all figures and illustrations? Have any authors been listed without their knowledge? Have other potential authors been omitted? Do they know the publication is proceeding without them? Is any of the material confidential? Was clearance obtained for any human studies? Is the scope of citation and attribution clear? Is there a clear distinction between new work and previous knowledge? Has other work with similar results been appropriately cited and discussed?

Source: G. Stylianou - Writing for Computer Science, Justin Zobel Ethics Checklist If any material is shared with another paper, has the sharing been explained to the reader? Has it been explained to the editor? Does the paper include material recycled from your earlier work? Are other papers accurately described? Do you know which version of the code was used to run the experiments? Could you run the experiments again and get the same outcome? Are there any weaknesses or limitations in the experiments that need to be described? Would you be prepared to show other researchers the raw experimental materials? Are any claims overstated?