Research on accuracy of referencing has shown deficiencies in both students' and researchers' efforts to cite accurately. Students' attitudes and understanding about what constitutes plagiarism has been researched extensively, but there is much less evidence about actual patterns of plagiarism. This study aimed to analyse both accuracy of referencing and plagiarism in electronically published theses. The data consisted of a sample of theses published in Theseus database, which is an electronic publication forum for universities of applied sciences in Finland. Altogether 91 theses in the areas of health and business studies formed the purposive sample for this study. Thesis texts were analysed by comparing the in-text citations to references, and in case of frequent inaccuracy a Google search was used to scrutinise possible plagiarism. The accuracy of referencing was classified in four categories: accurate, some inaccuracy, constant inaccuracy, and misleading referencing/plagiarism. Examples of inaccurate referencing, misleading referencing and plagiarism are presented in the article.

No abstract

No abstract

We have national guidelines for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. The guidelines have been formulated and updated by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK). In this article, we introduce and evaluate the national RCR guidelines. We also present statistics of alleged and proven RCR violation cases and frequency of appeals to TENK on the decisions or procedures of the primary institutions. In addition, we analyze the available data on seven investigated cases in more detail. Positive aspects in the Finnish system are a fairly good infrastructure to investigate suspected RCR violations and a wide concept of RCR violations, which consists of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, misappropriation, and other misbehaviors. However, the guidelines contain poorly elaborated definitions, do not treat the complainant and the suspect in an equal way, and need to be revised. Confusion about the concepts and criteria of the RCR violations seems to be common in primary institutions and among the complainants. Even if research institutions and universities have officially adhered to the national RCR guidelines, slipping from the guidelines occurs quite commonly. All these factors lead to frequent dissatisfaction with the decisions or procedures applied, high rate of appeals to TENK, and far from optimal functionality of the system.

No abstract