[LINK] Re: Aust Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

Roger Clarke Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au
Thu Sep 6 15:43:34 AEST 2007


Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:42:38 +1000
To: Robyn.Weare at health.gov.au, robyn.weare at nhmrc.gov.au
From: Roger Clarke <Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au>
Subject: Re: Aust Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

Dear Robyn

>Thank you for your recent  enquiry about the Australian Code for the 
>Responsible Conduct of Research.  The Code was officially launched 
>today and is available through the NHMRC's website at;
<http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/index.htm>http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/index.htm

Thank you for drawing this to my attention.

Would you please urgently advise me what was done about my expression 
of concern about the omission from the Draft Code of guidance in 
relation to plagiarism, and the dropping of the definition that is 
provided in the 1997 document.

A copy of my letter of 3 March 2006 is below.

My first impression is that the Code does enormous harm, in that it 
purports to replace the previous document, but loses some of the 
vital information it contained.

Students are becoming highly disenchanted about the pressure on them 
in relation to plagiarism, in comparison with what they see as 
laxness in relation to plagiarism by academics.

If my first impression is correct, then this Code will have a 
significant, negative impact on the ability of institutions to 
discipline staff for serious plagiarism.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely  ...  Roger Clarke



Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 13:40:22 +1000
To: researchcode at nhmrc.gov.au
From: Roger Clarke <Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au>
Subject: New Aust Code re Research Conduct

Professor Warwick Anderson
Chair
Joint Working Group
Review of the Joint NHMRC / AVCC Statement and Guidelines on Research 
Practice (1997)

Dear Prof. Anderson

I refer to the Second Draft of the Australian Code for the Responsible
Conduct of Research, at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/_files/acrcr.pdf.
(and apologise for not having raised this matter during the previous 
consultation round).

I express serious concern about the omission of guidance in relation 
to plagiarism, and the dropping of the definition that is provided in 
the 1997 document.

At 10.1.1 on p. 42, "Research misconduct is defined as deviation from 
the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research".  The 
list in Box 10.1 includes the single word "plagiarism".  But no 
guidance is provided, no pointer is provided to an authority on the 
topic, and the existing definition of plagiarism is omitted.

The mentions of related matters in sections 5 and 6.8 are inadequate, 
given the incidence of plagiarism, the increasing incidence of 
complaints about it, and the increasing availability of information 
about how to avoid it, and how to investigate complaints.

The present Draft represents a significant reduction in the value of 
the new Code from that provided in the 1997 document.

The 1997 document defines plagiarism in s. 7 to be a form of 
'misappropriation', and to mean "the presentation of the documented 
words or ideas of another as his or her own, without attribution 
appropriate for the medium of presentation".

I recently conducted an investigation into an accusation of academic 
plagiarism at the request of a Vice-Chancellor of an Australian 
university.  In doing so, I drew heavily on the definition of 
plagiarism in the 1997 document.

The definition proved to be very effective for its purpose.  I 
explain why in a recently-published paper, Clarke (2006), copy 
attached.  That paper also examines other aspects of the concept of 
plagiarism, and proposes a framework for investigations into 
allegations of plagiarism.

I urge that the new Code be enhanced to provide comprehensive 
guidance in relation to plagiarism.

An alternative would be to provide comprehensive guidance in relation 
to plagiarism in a separate document that is accurately referenced in 
the Code.

If the second approach is adopted, however, the development of the 
document needs to be addressed urgently, and promulgation of the Code 
should be held back until the guidance document is ready for 
publication.  My reasoning is that all momentum will cease when your 
Committee has completed its work, and there would be considerable 
risk that the document would never emerge.

At the very least, I urge that the definition in the 1997 Code be 
inserted into the new Code, in order to avoid undermining the present 
position in relation to investigations of accusations of plagiarism.

I would be pleased to discuss this further with yourself or your 
Committee as a whole, and to contribute to the development of the 
relevant text, should that be of assistance.

Yours sincerely




Roger Clarke


References

AVCC (1997)  'Joint NHMRC / AVCC Statement and Guidelines on Research 
Practice' Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, May 1997

Clarke R. (2006)  'Plagiarism by Academics:  More Complex Than It 
Seems',  J. Assoc. Infor. Syst.  7,  2  (February 2006)  91-121, at 
http://jais.isworld.org/articles/default.asp?vol=7&art=5
Preprint at http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Plag0506.html


-- 
Roger Clarke                  http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/
			            
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                    Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in Info Science & Eng  Australian National University
Visiting Professor in the eCommerce Program      University of Hong Kong
Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre      Uni of NSW



More information about the Link mailing list