Talk:Academic integrity

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 February 2019 and 4 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Harvdarv, Ameegan1, Vshaw23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cranfield University example[edit]

I'm deleting wholesale a paragraph on a "recent example" cited by User:Ankababel on March 26 2012. (the diff) The user made several edits to related articles, putting in quite a bit of information about one paper that was published in 2011, and several papers refuting it, also published in 2011. There's quite a bit of original research here, based on the analysis of the editor and description of the controversy; combining that with the allegations of impropriety makes it inappropriate and unbalanced -- especially given that it was such a recent issue at the time, I find it hard to believe that this particular example is one of the best examples of "Academic integrity" (failing thereof). There's probably some useful content here, but it needs to be combed through very carefully to eliminate POV problems and original research. So I'm posting it here for some other editor to take a pass. --Lquilter (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institutional Academic Integrity: Research Misconduct[edit]

Due to the squeeze on public financing of universities, they have become dependent on research contracts with external organizations (governments and industry). This has engendered the temptation to sacrifice impartial truth in order to please the client who is paying for the work, regardless of the field, whenever contract research is undertaken. This type of breach of academic integrity has been noted in the pharmaceutical industry, where conflict of interest seems to be endemic.^[1] A more insidious problem arises when a university works in a broad variety of areas: the outcome of one study might be distorted (research misconduct) because sponsors of other, not directly related, studies being undertaken at the same university might be uncomfortable with the results. This is best illustrated by a recent example involving Cranfield University in England, which, since it has no undergraduates, is especially strongly dependent on industrial research contracts. The University was commissioned by the UK Department for Transport to undertake two studies^[2]^[3] concerning the worrisome problem of aircraft cabin air contamination. The first report^[2] established the methodology, which was used in the second study. This methodology was, however, strongly criticized as inadequate by independent reviewers—the criticisms are included in the report^[2]—but the study nevertheless continued with them. The second report^[3] has in turn been strongly criticized.^[4]^[5]^[6] Cranfield University gets huge sums of money from research contracts with major aerospace companies and the government,^[7] which have strong views about the problem of aircraft cabin air contamination,^[6] but these financial interests are not declared in the reports and the results of the studies clearly suit these clients’ interests. According to the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity^[8] the reports^[2]^[3] breach integrity in several ways, including the choice of an inappropriate experimental method and failure to declare financial interests.

References

^ Brown, J. R. (2002), "Objectivity and the Socialisation of Medical Research", Science Engng Ethics, 8: 295–308.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Muir, H., Walton, C. and McKeown, R. Cabin Air Sampling Study Functionality Test. Cranfield University (2008).
^ ^a ^b ^c Crump, D., Harrison, P. and Walton, C. Aircraft Cabin Air Sampling Study; Part 1 of the Final Report. Cranfield University (2011).
^ Murawski, J. and Michaelis, S. (2011). "A critique of recent air sampling data collected on aircraft: how much exposure to neurotoxic fumes is acceptable?". J. Biol. Phys. Chem. 11: 147–151.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Cook, N. "Breathe easy?" RoSPA Occupational Safety Health J., November 2011, pp. 9-13.
^ ^a ^b Ramsden, J. J. (2011), "The scientific adequacy of the present state of knowledge concerning neurotoxins in aircraft cabin air", J. Biol. Phys. Chem., 11: 152–164.
^ http://www.studywarnomore.org.uk/documents/cranfield.pdf
^ Available from http://www.esf.org/activities/mo-fora/publications.html

Links[edit]

>> Investors Bet Against Stock in Harvard Professor’s Blog (Lihaas (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Academic integrity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Writing 10 - Both Classes[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 December 2023 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anneka05 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by DevBhakta7567 (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Brown, J. R. (2002), "Objectivity and the Socialisation of Medical Research", Science Engng Ethics, 8: 295–308.

[Muir-2] Muir, H., Walton, C. and McKeown, R. Cabin Air Sampling Study Functionality Test. Cranfield University (2008).

[Crump-3] Crump, D., Harrison, P. and Walton, C. Aircraft Cabin Air Sampling Study; Part 1 of the Final Report. Cranfield University (2011).

[4] Murawski, J. and Michaelis, S. (2011). "A critique of recent air sampling data collected on aircraft: how much exposure to neurotoxic fumes is acceptable?". J. Biol. Phys. Chem. 11: 147–151.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[5] Cook, N. "Breathe easy?" RoSPA Occupational Safety Health J., November 2011, pp. 9-13.

[Ramsden-6] Ramsden, J. J. (2011), "The scientific adequacy of the present state of knowledge concerning neurotoxins in aircraft cabin air", J. Biol. Phys. Chem., 11: 152–164.

[7] ttp://www.studywarnomore.org.uk/documents/cranfield.pdf

[8] Available from http://www.esf.org/activities/mo-fora/publications.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]