Bruce Wang’s Post

Supporting Postgraduate Students Beyond Academics As professors, we often forget that our postgraduate students—whether pursuing their Master’s or PhD—are still (students) at heart. While they engage in advanced research and clinical work, they are also learning, growing, and more importantly, (imitating) the ethics, practices, and standards we demonstrate. It’s easy to overlook that, in addition to mastering complex topics, they are absorbing how we approach research, how we handle challenges, and how we navigate professional relationships. This is why it’s essential that we not only set a strong example but also provide them with the necessary , resources and guidance. Clear directions, infographics, and tools can help them meet their academic and clinical requirements while reinforcing the ethical standards they will carry into their careers. https://lnkd.in/eNyfQf-y Let’s remember that guidance is not just about completing tasks—it’s about shaping the next generation of professionals.

Describe one change to scientific policy or culture that would substantially decrease incidents of scientific misconduct or other unethical behavior. Here are some answers: from young scientists in Science Magazine: -reduce subjectivity (eg mandate review and approval of author lists) -increase career stability (eg reduce PhD students or increase permanent positions) -broader assessments (eg assess research integrity and tie it to funding) -Enforce strict penalties (eg ban people who engage in plagiarism or data manipulation) -Require transparency (eg enforce data sharing) -De-emphasize publication quantity (eg focus on quality over quantity) -Invest in students (eg limit PhD duration) -Rethink publication criteria (eg make publication decisions and preregistration stage) -Focus on well-being (eg promote work-life balance) -Provide training (eg require ethics training) -Support global efforts (eg prioritize collaboration and research with local impact) What is missing: https://lnkd.in/eAxKV_HA

Academic misconduct, especially in management research, is an open secret (I have little experience about other streams, so cannot comment). It has different forms too. Many prolific authors and editors scratch each others back and make sure their paper goes through with minimal barrier. This is particularly true for ABS3/2 journals and not so much in ABS4 (although there are some exceptions).This is also particularly true in certain domains of management. If a cartle's paper face less barrier, it automatically creates stronger barrier for people outside the cartle, given the space constraints in journal issues. As a reviewer, I have also experienced requests from associate editors to take "special care" to papers submitted by prolific authors. I have been asked by a co-author prolific researcher to change the item statements after the data was collected. We discontinued our association at that very point. I remember asking an EIC point-blank in an open forum what he is doing as an EIC to tackle these issues. He did not expect such a question and had no concrete answer too. If your productivity is an outlier, you will attract attention. And, in such a case, you must express the highest degree of ethics as you cannot have margin of error. And if you are foul-mouthed and aggressive to somebody who is questioning, it actually gives a different signal. After all, we all know who has "বড় গলা". We are scared to talk about this as it can create potential backlash. Such backlash may have minimal effect on the mid-level academics like me as we have already gained some bit of experience, but it can effect our coauthor PhD students as they are just starting their journey. If they face unnecessary barriers because we are facing backlash, it may not be good for them. Thinking all these, we refrain from talking. But somebody needs to 🔔 the 🐈.

🌟 Emphasizing collaboration between research institutions & journals is key for research integrity! New COPE guidelines offer valuable insights on communication, misconduct prevention, & maintaining scholarly record 📚 #ResearchIntegrity #AcademicPublishing

On how to manage public academic misconduct charges (or posting to social media makes it that much harder for the acusser). Sometimes, accusations of misconduct spill out from private conversations to public social media forums. Often, the public, social media, dialogue gets ugly. BC public accusations can cost people their livelihood, the stakes of these conversations are not small. And. People don't forget. Nor. Do their friends. Nor. Does the public record. You can not pull down a written social media accusattion with ease. So what to expect? What to think about? If you post an accusation. If you lodge the complaint, you must: 1. Be sure this is not a suspicion. You need to have evidence. I have investigated accusations in various roles. Mostly, there was neither smoke nor fire. So, I could do nothing. Absent evidence, it puts the "investigator" in a tough spot. 2. Be prepared for trouble. If you present evidence, you can't predicd how the accused will fight back - in public or private. You can't predict if they will "own the mistake" or deny "the mistake" & lash out. So be prepared for public & private attacks. 3. Be prepared for attacks from unexpected angles. If you make the accusation public, you will find the accused have friends. The accused may not want the optics of tackling you head on. So, their friends may not have the reluctance. Be prepared for attacks from all angles. 4. Be beyond reproach. I have seen the accused dredge up every rumor or immature act of an accuser as part of their defense. Sometimes, they will lay a coutnercharge. If you have dirt, or personal issues you don't want aired in public, consider a quieter approach, than a social media post, to laying the charge of misconduct. 5. Consider laying the charge in a less public way. Rather than going public, keep it private. Report the issue to the journal editor, your professional association, or to the relevant school. This will usually trigger a process, designed to protect you & the accused. If there is smoke & fire, their response will be measured & they will take it public if it needs to be. If you take this route, know that, your responsibility to behave ethically, will be discharged, & you may be able to rest easier. It is also less damaging to you, bc the editor, journal, institution should have the accusation & investigation cofidentially. But there is still risk for you ... bc some lips are loose. So. Be aware. That #whistleblowing, which is what reporting #academic misconduct is, often results in harm to the accused, & often, to the accuser. Sometimes, more harm to the accuser than the accused. So what to do? Approach laying public charges of #misconduct with caution, know it's a serious matter, to you & to the accused, & only do it when you have a) evidence & b) are prepared to take the heat. And if you do have evidence, know that, I will support you 100% Best of luck.

Planning a career in science? Read about the ethical considerations in research and trials designed to protect the safety of study volunteers and the legitimacy of results. Visit our website to learn more: https://bit.ly/3WJEgMv #onlinelearning #education #science #researchmethods

These new COPE guidelines underline the importance of collaboration between research institutions and journals in maintaining research and publication integrity. These excellent guidelines offer recommendations on points of contact, information sharing, and communication. They also address potential misconduct involving multiple journals or institutions and the correction of the scholarly record. https://lnkd.in/epiJExQg #researchintegrity #scholarlypublishing #academicpublishing #researchethics #guidelines

DUPLICATE PUBLICATION UNCOVERED IN ACADEMIC JOURNALS Discover how concerns over duplicate publication in academic research have raised questions about transparency and integrity. Learn about the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommendations and the importance of upholding standards to maintain the integrity of scholarly research. https://lnkd.in/dYvEkMPg

📌Understanding the Differences Between these Four Academic Departments/Institutes and their Definitions, Studies, Characteristics, and Research Activities: ▶️The Departments/Institutes of (1) Public Policy, (2) Social Policy, (3) Public Administration, and (4) Public Law. ⚠️They may sound similar but are different types of study departments/Institutes with (dis)similar curriculums, syllabuses, courses, subjects, and approaches (See Table 1 below). ▶️They also focus on (dis)similar research topics/scopes, questions, interests, areas, etc. ■■■ 🚨 For your individual (one-to-one) and institution/university participation in my (on/off-line or Hybrid) "(Comparative) Public & Social Policy Analysis Course", "(Policy/Business) Research Proposal Development and Refinement", "Academic/Scholarly& Thesis/Dissertation Writing", "Research Philosophy for (Social) Sciences", "(Business) Research Methodology and Methods", etc. inquiry-based training and mentoring courses/programs that will inspire, empower and guide attendees' inquiry/hybrid-based learning, growth mindsets and self-confidence as well as analytical, synergistic thinking, critical problem solving, scientific writing and interpersonal skills on how to understand and write theoretical & conceptual frameworks, innovative research/thesis proposal, scientific articles, policy papers, persuasive & argumentative thesis/dissertation, research methodology and methods chapters, etc. for innovative (basic/applied) research, high-quality publications, and impactful (early/established) career research development and management, etc. 🔔Contact me directly through the correspondence email below for the research training, mentoring programs, and (external) supervision possibilities requirements and logistics arrangements: 📧 [email protected] ■■■ Prof Dr Eddy Bruno Esien, PhD Research & Teaching Professor (Business) Research Methodology & Methods Professor/Mentor Prof and Dr. in Public & Social Policy Academic/Scholarly & Thesis/Dissertation Writing Teacher/Supervisor Research & Dev't Management Expert Director of Doctoral Schools & Seminars Chair of Research Ethics Committees Adviser on Research Integrity Scientific Journal Editorial Board Member ■■■

The doctoral journey can be thought of as five phases: 1. Conceptual: develop, clarify and present your research topic 2. Critical: review literature, select methodology and method, gain ethics approval, design your data collection instrument 3. Action: collect and prepare data 4. Analytical: analyse data and generate findings 5. Creative: discuss significance of findings, conclude and recommend, assemble your final report These phases overlap with each other. It is important to leave enough time to do each well. Thinking about your research in terms of phases can help you to set milestones and keep your project on track.