Shubhada Patil’s Post

Qeshm Higher Education Institute­ with the approach of knowledge excellence and research in order to promote the sciences of planning and sustainable development and analysis of issues of cities, villages and residential areas of the country with the permission of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology has published the Journal of Geography (Regional Planning), which is published in the 4th year. Based on the vote of the Commission for Reviewing the Validity of the country's scientific journals,  dated 2/27/2012 to letter number 3/53021 Journal of Geography and Regional Planning was recognized as eligible for scientific research. This journal is published following the Memorandum of Understanding concluded with the scientific cooperation of the Iranian Association of Geopolitics. About Journal of Geography (Regional planning): ISO Abbreviation: JGEOQ Publisher: Qeshm Institute of Higher Education Printing status: Print and Electronic Frequency: Quarterly Access: Free and Free Articles Download Journal Language: Persian (English Abstract) Specialty: Geography Journal Type: Scientific; Research Review Policy: Double Blind Average Time to First Decision: 3 to 4 months Journal Email: qeshmmajaleh@gmail.com  The journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and subscribes to its principles on how to deal with acts of misconduct thereby committing to investigate allegations of misconduct in order to ensure the integrity of research. The journal may use plagiarism detection software to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed. All authors are strongly recommended to check their manuscripts content before its submission to the journal for publication. The Authors may use trustable valid "Plagiarism Checking software’s" to make sure that their manuscripts are Plagiarism free. Anyway, all submitted papers to the journal will be checked against Plagiarism upon receiving and also before publishing finally using samimnoor, irandoc, hamyab, duplichecker and other Plagiarism Detection Software’s. If the Reviewers, Editor-in-Chiefs, Readers or Editorial Staffs suspect or notice any types of plagiarism at any stage of publication process, the manuscript will be rejected and all authors including the corresponding author will be notified then. Self-plagiarism is also considered & managed accordingly.

The checklist will undoubtedly help to ensure research papers are thoroughly reviewed and polished before submission. Thanks, Waqar Ali, for the helpful reviewing checklist! It is a valuable resource for researchers.

Scientific Plagiarism: Challenges of Adhering to Ethical Standards in Scientific Research Scientific plagiarism poses a major challenge to the academic and research communities. It involves using others' work or ideas without proper attribution, thus violating intellectual property rights and academic honesty. Plagiarism has become more prevalent with easy access to information through the internet. Key reasons for plagiarism include academic pressure, lack of awareness of ethical standards, and the ease of copying online content. These actions harm the credibility of research and academic institutions, reducing trust in researchers and the integrity of their work. Challenges in addressing plagiarism include insufficient awareness of laws and ethical standards, difficulties in enforcing plagiarism detection, and the need for better academic education on research ethics. To combat plagiarism, efforts should focus on raising awareness, using technological tools like plagiarism detection software, and fostering an academic culture of honesty and transparency. Maintaining ethical standards is crucial to ensure the credibility and quality of scientific research.

PhD Students / Researchers: Before submitting your paper, make sure to review the following checklist: 1. Your manuscript is free from all kinds of plagiarism. 2. Your manuscript is free from formatting and typographical errors. 3. Your article is a good fit for the selected journal/conference. 4. You are adhering to the guidelines of your ethics application. 5. You have disclosed all conflicts of interest. 6. You have read the journal’s instructions for authors. 7. Your manuscript adheres to the journal’s formatting requirements. 8. You have obtained consent from all authors for submission. 9. Check the review method - single/double-blind and follow accordingly. 10. Each reference has dates (sometimes they get missed). 11. The abstract is within the allocated word limit. 12. Authors’ names, affiliations, and emails are included for journals. 13. Each figure and table are correctly numbered and cited in the text. 14. The related work section is up to date and complete. 15. Your work is clearly positioned with respect to the related works. 16. You have included an ethics statement (if applicable). 17. You have acknowledged the funding bodies (if applicable). 18. You have included the keywords.

The President of AUF, Sorin Cîmpeanu, quoted in EP Academic Freedom Monitor 2023 for plagiarism. The most prominent specific cases in Romania are related to plagiarism and political relationships. Plagiarism cases havebeen found to be particularly widespread and largely undetected, unreported or rejected by universities and their ethics committees, with five universities going so far as to accept papers with up 50% similarity to other published works (Popescu, 2019). It appears that the academic community is hindered in its ability to follow up on cases of academic fraud, due to a number of structural weaknesses in the process of reporting and assessing cases, as well as the involvement of influential individuals minimizing legal and academic consequences. However, recent cases provide examples of current challenges with regards to dealing with plagiarism and an influential political elite. An issue with many of these cases is that they end up being decided in courts which focus on procedural rather than substantive elements, thereby moving academic judgments outside of academia. In the case of former Minister of Education, Sorin Cîmpeanu, personal and professional ties to his alma mater, the National Council of Rectors (CNR), and the Council of Ethics and University Management (CEMU), have seemingly obscured, delayed, and downplayed accusations about plagiarising a university course he taught168. The CNR issues two separate statements casting doubt over the accusations, as well as praising Cîmpeanu’s previous achievements and abilities as head of the CNR (Editorial, 2022b; Pantazi, 2022b). Cîmpeanu had downplayed the issue by arguing in an interview that since the course material copied had no ISBN, there was no copyright issue and that it was akin to copying the instructions of a coffee machine (Stanescu, 2022). Although Cîmpeanu resigned from his position as minister a few days following the allegations, he was promptly reinstated, without announcements, to his former positions as rector of the University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest (USAMV), and as chairman of the National Council of Rectors (CNR) (Editorial, 2022c). With respect to the evaluation of the allegations, a major point of concern is that the main responsibility for assessing and reporting the matter falls on the institution which issued the accompanying degree, which in this case can be problematic given Cîmpeanu’s previous and current position as rector. The university’s ethics board dismissed the allegations, stating that it was a practical work guide rather than a piece of scientific work, while the National Ethics Council of Scientific Research, Technological Development and Innovation (CNECSDTI) and CEMU declined taking responsibility for investigating and following up on the case (Armanca, 2023).

The Role of Publication Pressure The hyper-competitive academic landscape has exacerbated the problem. Journals with high impact factors are often seen as the gold standard, and researchers are under immense pressure to publish in these outlets. This has led to a "publish or perish" mentality, where quantity often trumps quality. To meet these demands, some researchers may resort to unethical practices. Moreover, the metric-driven evaluation of academic performance, often based solely on publication numbers and citations, has created a perverse incentive system. This has led to a focus on short-term gains at the expense of long-term academic integrity. The Limitations of Plagiarism Detection Tools: While plagiarism detection software has improved significantly, it remains limited in its ability to identify all forms of misconduct. Text-based plagiarism checkers can effectively identify instances of copied text, but they are often ineffective at detecting data manipulation, image tampering, or authorship abuse. Additionally, these tools may generate false positives, accusing researchers of plagiarism when none exists.

Sharing for better reach: we empathize with the situation of the original researcher and hope they receive due recognition for their paper, while those responsible face scrutiny and have their publications re-evaluated. #research #cope #nature #malpractice #ethics

I am shocked to find the following article authored by Prof. Onkar Singh discussing the very issues I had previously raised and shared with him, including several documents I had personally authored on the subject. It is deeply troubling that the author has published these ideas under his own name without acknowledging my contributions. The two terms: "Paper Mill Authors" and "Gift Authors"—have been explicitly used by me in numerous written correspondences that I have shared with the author over the past 3-4 months. Therefore, this clearly constitutes a case of UNETHICAL PUBLICATION. In the interest of maintaining publication ethics, I respectfully request that the author retract the article. Also, sharing Prof. Onkar Singh's reply along with my response to him: Onkar Singh: This piece is based on observations and understanding of the issues raised herein which is obviously culmination of discussions and interactions with number of persons in academics. There is no copying of content, and thus no violation of ethics.There are lot of publications in this regard. Rajeev Kumar: The two terms: "Paper Mill Authors" and "Gift Authors"—have been explicitly used by me in numerous written correspondences that I have shared with you over the past 3-4 months. Therefore, this clearly constitutes a case of UNETHICAL PUBLICATION. I request for retraction of this article. Onkar Singh: I beg to differ because the terms referred by you are not copyrighted ones and neither am I the owner of these. A basic web search of these words reverts numerous results of their usage. There is nothing UNETHICAL in this piece. .... Onkar Singh: 2- My purpose of writing in public domains is to sensitize the community and initiate discussions on these malaises with the hope that solutions emerge from such discussions. The purpose is neither to breach anyone's copyright, nor to get caught up into discussions which have no meaning for the good of the academic system. It is time we foster the concept of open discussions and free speech instead of getting embroiled in such discussions.I reiterate there is nothing unethical in this piece. Rajeev Kumar: The fact that the terms were not copyrighted does not give you the right to misappropriate my work from the past six months, which I shared with you in good faith. It is extremely shocking that an academician in such a high position would engage in such unethical practices and attempt to justify publishing my work. Your claim that you are trying to sensitize unethical practices by committing this blatant act of unethical fraud is utterly indefensible. Rajeev Kumar: Sir, You have repeatedly deleted the following response to your two-point reply regarding the post: 'Paper mills and gift authors fuelling academic fraud.' By doing so, you are perpetuating another layer of the very fraud being discussed. 

Ethical concerns are central to all kinds of academic research. This post outlines seven examples of Ethical Issues that can arise when conducting research.

⛔️ It's disheartening to see instances where researchers compromise their integrity by plagiarizing or stealing the work of others. This not only undermines the credibility of the individual but also erodes trust in the entire research community. It's crucial for institutions, journals, and funding agencies to implement stricter measures to identify and penalize such misconduct. #research #academia #ethics #plagiarism #intellectualproperty