Scientific writing can be a complex and arduous process, for it simultaneously demands clarity and conciseness; two elements that often clash with each other. In addition, accuracy and integrity are fundamental components of the scientific enterprise and, therefore, of scientific writing. Thus, good scientific writing must be characterized by clear expression, conciseness, accuracy of what is being reported, and perhaps most importantly, honesty. Unfortunately, writing, or for that matter the entire scientific process, often occurs within the constraints of tight deadlines and other competing pressures. As a result of these constraints, scientific papers, whether generated by science students or by seasoned professionals, will at times be deficient in one or more of the above components.
Insufficient clarity or lack of conciseness are typically unintentional and relatively easy to remedy by standard educational or editorial steps. Lapses in the accuracy of what is reported (e.g., faulty observations, incorrect interpretation of results) are also assumed to be most often unintentional in nature, but such lapses, even if unintentional, can have significant undesirable consequences if not corrected. Intentional lapses in integrity, even if seemingly minor, are by far the most serious type of problem because such misconduct runs contrary to the primary goal of the scientific enterprise, which is the search for truth.
In scientific writing, perhaps the most widely recognized unethical lapse is plagiarism. Plagiarism can occur in many forms and some of the more subtle instances, while arguably unethical in nature, may not be classified as scientific misconduct by federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Nevertheless, the ethical professional is expected to operate at the highest levels of scientific integrity and, therefore, must avoid all forms of writing that could be conceptualized as plagiarism.
There are other questionable writing practices, some of which may be quite common in professional scientific writing. One example is reporting and discussing results of one’s research in the context of literature that is supportive of our conclusions while at the same time ignoring evidence that is contrary to our findings. Another writing ‘malpractice’ occurs when another author’s review of a literature is used, yet the reader is led to believe that the current author has conducted the actual review.
- Avoiding plagiarism Plagiarism and authorship disputes
- Avoiding plagiarism :Guideline 9: Plagiarism and common knowledge
- Avoiding plagiarism :Guideline 7&8 Paraphrasing highly technical language
- Avoiding plagiarism :Guideline 6:Examples of paraphrasing: Good and Bad
- Avoiding plagiarism :Guideline 6: Paraphrasing and Plagiarism
- Avoiding plagiarism :Guideline 4 & 5: Inappropriate paraphrasing
- Avoiding Plagiarism Guideline 2 & 3: Plagiarism of text
- Avoiding plagiarism :Guideline 1 Plagiarism of ideas : Acknowledging the source of our ideas
- What is Plagiarism?
- On ethical writing
Kuandika kwa kisayansi kunaweza kuwa mchakato mgumu na mgumu, kwa sababu wakati huohuo inahitaji uwazi na ufupi; mambo mawili ambayo mara nyingi hupingana. Kwa kuongezea, usahihi na uadilifu ni sehemu za msingi za mradi wa kisayansi na, kwa hiyo, wa uandishi wa kisayansi. Kwa hiyo, maandishi mazuri ya kisayansi lazima yaonyeshwe kwa usemi ulio wazi, ufupi, usahihi wa yale yanayoripotiwa, na labda muhimu zaidi, uaminifu. Kwa bahati mbaya, kuandika, au kwa suala hilo mchakato mzima wa kisayansi, mara nyingi hutokea ndani ya vizuizi vya tarehe za mwisho nyembamba na shinikizo nyingine za ushindani. Kama matokeo ya vikwazo hivi, karatasi za kisayansi, iwe zinazozalishwa na wanafunzi wa sayansi au na wataalamu wenye uzoefu, wakati mwingine zitakuwa na upungufu katika moja au zaidi ya vipengele vya juu. Uwazi usio wa kutosha au ukosefu wa ufupi kwa kawaida ni unintentional na ni rahisi kurekebisha kwa hatua za kawaida za elimu au uhariri. Mapungufu katika usahihi wa kile kinachoripotiwa (kwa mfano, uchunguzi usio sahihi, tafsiri isiyo sahihi ya matokeo) pia hufikiriwa kuwa mara nyingi haijulikani kwa asili, lakini mapungufu kama hayo, hata ikiwa hayakukubaliwa, yanaweza kuwa na matokeo muhimu yasiyotakiwa ikiwa hayatasahihishwa. "Kutokuwa na uadilifu kwa makusudi, hata kama ni kidogo, ni aina kubwa zaidi ya tatizo kwa sababu tabia mbaya kama hiyo inapita kinyume na lengo kuu la mradi wa kisayansi, ambayo ni kutafuta ukweli. """ Katika uandishi wa kisayansi, labda kosa lisilo la adili linalotambuliwa sana ni uandishi bandia. Ulaghai unaweza kutokea katika aina nyingi na baadhi ya matukio ya kisasa zaidi, wakati arguably unethical katika asili, inaweza kuwa si classified kama tabia mbaya ya kisayansi na mashirika ya shirikisho kama vile National Science Foundation (NSF) au Ofisi ya Uadilifu wa Utafiti (ORI). Hata hivyo, mtaalamu wa maadili anatarajiwa kufanya kazi katika viwango vya juu vya uadilifu wa kisayansi na, kwa hiyo, lazima aepuke aina zote za uandishi ambazo zinaweza kuwa na dhana kama plagiarism. Kuna mazoea mengine ya uandishi yenye kutiliwa shaka, ambayo baadhi yake yanaweza kuwa ya kawaida sana katika uandishi wa kisayansi wa kitaaluma. Mfano mmoja ni kuripoti na kujadili matokeo ya utafiti wa mtu katika muktadha wa fasihi ambayo inasaidia hitimisho letu wakati wakati huo huo kupuuza ushahidi ambao ni kinyume na matokeo yetu. Mwingine kuandika "malpractice" hutokea wakati mwandishi mwingine'mapitio ya fasihi ni kutumika, bado msomaji ni kuongozwa kuamini kwamba mwandishi wa sasa imefanya mapitio halisi. "Kutoka kwa ""plagiarism"" na ""plagiarism"" ni suala la msingi, na kwa hivyo, kwa sababu ya ""plagiarism"" na ""plagiarism,"" ni muhimu kutambua chanzo cha wazo lako na kuepuka kuiba." - Juu ya uandishi wa maadili