Problems of ethics, open science and open innovation 7404-EONOI
ad 2) OPEN INNOVATIONS (5H):
Complete description of the subject Lecture and Exercises:
1. Open Innovations - Theory and Practice K02
2. BMC Construction (Introduction) K02
3. Entrepreneurial Uncertainty - A Board Game Experience K02
The course will be held on the following days:
9.06.2022 9:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. (group 1)
10.06.2022 9:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. (group 2)
10.06.2022 14:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. (group 3)
at ICNT room A.3.16, second floor.
The course with dr inż. Jakub Rydzewski will take place on June 20th, 2022 at 12.15 in room S1 COK.
ad 3)
Basic concepts related to scientific dishonesty (plagiarism, forgery, fabrication) and legal and disciplinary consequences for PhD students and academics resulting from dishonest behavior related to their publications will be presented. Participants will be introduced to the definition of self-plagiarism and ways to avoid it. Examples and scientific consequences resulting from committing self-plagiarism will be presented.
Issues related to scientific integrity - good scientific practices and principles of "quotation ethics" will also be discussed. The lecturer will show and analyze selected cases of plagiarism of scientific and doctoral theses, as well as devote the attention of the audience to the recognition and analysis of various types of violations of quotation ethics.
Total student workload
Learning outcomes - knowledge
Learning outcomes - skills
Learning outcomes - social competencies
Teaching methods
Observation/demonstration teaching methods
Expository teaching methods
Exploratory teaching methods
- case study
- brainstorming
Online teaching methods
Type of course
Prerequisites
Course coordinators
Term 2023/24: | Term 2024/25: | Term 2022/23L: | Term 2025/26: |
Assessment criteria
OPEN INNOVATIONS (5H):
Activity and involvement during the RPG.
Ad 3)
The basis of marking will be the test.
4. Assessment criteria
very good (vdb; 5.0): very good knowledge of concepts related to scientific integrity and dishonesty and basic concepts in the field of copyright law. Rich knowledge of scientific dishonesty, its legal and disciplinary effects. High awareness and ability to reliably edit scientific texts.
good plus (+db; 4.5): as above, with minor shortcomings
good (db; 4.0): good knowledge of concepts related to scientific integrity and dishonesty and basic concepts in the field of copyright law. Considerable knowledge of scientific dishonesty, its legal and disciplinary effects. Good awareness and ability to reliably edit scientific texts.
sufficient plus (+dst; 3.5): satisfactory knowledge of concepts related to scientific integrity and dishonesty and basic concepts in the field of copyright law. Average knowledge of scientific misconduct, its legal and disciplinary effects. Satisfactory awareness and ability to reliably edit scientific texts
sufficient (dst; 3.0): basic knowledge of concepts related to scientific reliability and dishonesty and basic concepts in the field of copyright law. Low knowledge of scientific misconduct, its legal and disciplinary effects. Low awareness and ability to reliably edit scientific texts.
inadequate (ndst; 2.0): unsatisfactory knowledge and skills.
Practical placement
None
Bibliography
ad 3)
Czerwiński T.: Plagiat naukowy w perspektywie akademickiej. Perspectiva. Legnickie Studia Teologiczno-Historyczne, 12, 2013, (1): 5-19.
Stanisławska-Kloc S.: Przywłaszczenie autorstwa utworu (plagiat) w sferze działalności naukowej i akademickiej – zagadnienia wybrane. Kwartalnik Prawa Prywatnego, 2020, 29 (3), 545-576.
Ochman P.: Z problematyki prawnych konsekwencji plagiatu naukowego. Mathematica Applicanda, 40, 2012, (1): 145-162. https://wydawnictwa.ptm.org.pl/index.php/matematyka-stosowana/article/download/279/283
Raubo A., Wroński M.: Problem elementów twórczych w utworze technicznym – na tle przypadku pracy magisterskiej. Acta Iuris Stetinensis, 18, 2017 (2): 263-287.
Raubo A., Wroński M.: Nierzetelność naukowa w pubikacjach akaddemickich. Kilka przykładów z zakresu nauk humanistycznych i społecznych. Rocznik Pedagogiczny, 40, 2017: 157-172.
Faneli D.: How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLOS ONE, 2009, 4 (5), e-5738.
Sieńczyło-Chlabicz J., Banasiuk J.: Pojęcie i istota zjawiska autoplagiatu w twórczości naukowej. Państwo i Prawo, 67, 2012, (3): 6-19.
Szczotka J.: Twórczość naukowa: czy autoplagiat jest plagiatem?. Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, 23, 2014: 23-28.
Young R.G., Mitterboeck T.F.: Perspectives for early-career researchers on plagiarism and scientific integrity. FACETS, 2020, Jan. 13. 17-25.
https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2019-0031
Wray KB, Andersen LE: „Retractions in Science” PDF post-print Scientometrics 2018 https://pure.au.dk/portal/files/178006886/Reactionsinscience.pdf
Katavic V.: Retractions of scientific publications. Responsibility and accountability. PDF, Biochemia Medica, 2014, 24 (2) 217-222.
Additional information
Additional information (registration calendar, class conductors, localization and schedules of classes), might be available in the USOSweb system: