Chapter 4

Ethics in Research
What is Ethics?
Ethical Considerations in Research Process

In general, ethics is the study of proper action (Ray, 2000).

Research ethics concerns the responsibility of researchers to be honest and

respectful to all individuals who are affected by their research studies or their
reports of the studies’ results. Researchers are usually governed by a set of
ethical guidelines that assist them to make proper decisions and choose proper
actions. In psychological research, the American Psychological Association
(APA) maintains a set of ethical principles for research (APA, 2002, 2010).
In research, ethical issues must be considered at each step in the research process.
Ethical principles dictate

(1) what measurement techniques may be used for certain individuals and certain behaviors,
(2) how researchers select individuals to participate in studies,
(3) which research strategies may be used with certain populations and behaviors,
(4) which research designs may be used with certain populations and behaviors,
(5) how studies may be carried out with individuals,
(6) how data are analyzed, and, finally,
(7) how results are reported.
Sample Case 1
Suppose that, as a topic for a research study, you are interested in brain injury that

may result from repeated blows to the head such as those suffered by boxers and

soccer players.

For obvious ethical reasons (physical harm), you could not plan a study that involved injuring
people’s brains to examine the effects.

However, you could compare two pre-existing groups, for example, a group of college football

and ice hockey players and a group of college athletes from noncontact sports .
Sample Case 2

Suppose that you are interested in sexual behavior as a research topic.

For obvious ethical reasons (privacy), you cannot secretly install video cameras
in people’s bedrooms.

However, you could ask people to complete a questionnaire about their sexual
behavior.
The Basic Categories of Ethical Responsibility

Researchers have two basic categories of ethical responsibility:

(1) responsibility to ensure the welfare and dignity of the individuals, both
human and nonhuman, who participate in their research studies; and

(2) responsibility to ensure that public reports of their research are accurate and
honest
The Basic Categories of Ethical Responsibility

Committees such as the

Institutional Review Board (IRB), which reviews research involving human
participants,
and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which reviews
research with nonhuman subjects,
assist researchers in meeting their ethical responsibilities.
These committees examine all proposed research with respect to treatment of
humans and nonhumans.
Historical Highlights of Treatment of Human
Participants

Until the end of World War II, researchers established their own ethical standards
and safeguards for human participants in their research.
The major impetus for a shift from individualized ethics to more formalized
ethical guidelines was the uncovering of the brutal experiments performed on
prisoners in Nazi concentration camps.
When these and other atrocities came to light, some of those responsible were
tried for their crimes at Nuremberg in 1947. Out of these trials came the
Nuremberg Code, a set of 10 guidelines for the ethical treatment of human
participants in research.
Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the
person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able
to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit,
duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have
sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to
enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires
that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should
be known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by
which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the
effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the
experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon
each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and
responsibility that may not be delegated to another with impunity.
Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of
society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and
unnecessary in nature.
Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal

experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other
problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of
the experiment.
Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical

and mental suffering and injury.
Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to

believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those
experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the
humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to

protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury,
disability, or death.
Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons.

The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the
experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to
bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state
where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
Ten Points of the Nuremberg Code

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared
to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in
the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of
him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or
death to the experimental subject.
Historical Highlights of Treatment of Human
Participants

In 1972, a newspaper report exposed a Public Health Service study, commonly

referred to as the Tuskegee study,

in which nearly 400 men had been left to suffer with syphilis long after a cure
(penicillin) was available.

The study began as a short-term investigation to monitor untreated syphilis but

continued for 40 years just so the researchers could examine the final stages of
the disease (Jones, 1981).
Historical Highlights of Treatment of Human
Participants

Milgram’s obedience study (Milgram, 1963)

Milgram instructed participants to use electric shocks to punish other individuals when they made errors
during a learning task. The intensity of the shocks was gradually increased until the participants were
administering what appeared to be dangerously strong and obviously painful shocks.

In fact, no shocks were used in the study (the “shocked” individuals were pretending); however, the
participants (those who administered the shocks) believed that they were inflicting real pain and
suffering.

Although the participants in Milgram’s study sustained no physical harm, they suffered shame and
embarrassment for having behaved inhumanely toward their fellow human beings. The participants
entered the study thinking that they were normal, considerate human beings, but they left with the
knowledge that they could all too easily behave inhumanely.
Historical Highlights of Treatment of Human
Participants

In 1974 Congress passed the National Research Act. The act mandated regulations for
the protection of human participants and had the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare create the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Biomedical and Behavioral Research (Dunn & Chadwick, 1999).

In 1979, the National Commission published The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and
Guideline for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.

The Belmont Report summarizes the basic ethical principles identified by the National
Commission, which are used as the foundation upon which the federal regulations for
protecting human participants are based, even to this day.
The Belmont Report identifies three basic
principles:

1. The principle of respect for persons (autonomy)

Requires that individuals should consent to participate in studies (i.e., after
learning about the research study, people should be free to decide whether they
would like to participate in the study) and those who cannot give their consent,
such as children, people with diminished abilities, and prisoners, need special
protection.

How can this principle be applied to Tuskegee study? To Milgram study?

The Belmont Report identifies three basic
principles:

1. The principle of respect for persons (autonomy)

Milgram’s study and the Tuskegee study violated the principle of respect.
Milgram’s participants did not know that they were in an experiment on
obedience, and the Tuskegee participants were not informed that there was an
effective treatment for their disease.
The Belmont Report identifies three basic
principles:

2. The principle of beneficence

Requires that the researcher does not harm the participants, minimizes risks,
and maximizes possible benefits.

How can this principle be applied to Tuskegee study? To Milgram study?

The Belmont Report identifies three basic
principles:

2. The principle of beneficence

Clearly both Milgram’s study and the Tuskegee study caused harm to the
participants. Personal distress resulted in Milgram’s study and physical harm in
the Tuskegee study. To underscore just how ethically vile the Tuskegee study
was, 65 years after the Tuskegee study began, in 1997, then U.S. President, Bill
Clinton, apologized to survivors and family members for the U.S. government’s
role in the research study (CDC, 1997)
The Belmont Report identifies three basic
principles:

3. The principle of justice

Requires fair and nonexploitative procedures for the selection and treatment of
participants.

How can this principle be applied to Tuskegee study? To Milgram study?

The Belmont Report identifies three basic
principles:

3. The principle of justice

For the Milgram study, the costs and benefits of participation are distributed
equally, such that participants are representative of the people who may benefit
from the research (Gillespie, 1999).The Tuskegee study violates the principle of
justice as well. Everyone could benefit from understanding syphilis; however, only
poor, African– American males were used as participants and therefore unduly
bore the burden of risk.
Historical Highlights of Treatment of Human
Participants

Around the same time that the federal government began to concern itself with
protecting human participants in research, the American Psychological Association
(APA) prepared its first set of now widely distributed and accepted guidelines (1973).

The first APA committee on ethics was set up in 1952; however, it was not until the mid
1960s, in response to major criticisms of Milgram’s now famous obedience study, that
APA members began to discuss a formal code of ethics.

The APA Ethics Code contains 10 ethical standards intended to provide guidance for
psychologists and standards of professional conduct that can be applied by the APA
and by other bodies that choose to adopt them.
American Psychological Association Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines for the Use and Treatment of
Human Participants in Research
1. No Harm (Sections 3.04 and 8.08)
Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their research
participants, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.
Psychologists do not engage in torture, which is defined as inflicting severe pain
or suffering, either physical or mental, or committing any other cruel, inhuman, or
degrading behavior.
When psychologists become aware that research procedures have harmed a
participant, they take reasonable steps to minimize the harm.
American Psychological Association Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines for the Use and Treatment of
Human Participants in Research
2. Privacy and Confidentiality (Sections 4.01–4.05)
Psychologists have a primary obligation and take reasonable precautions to protect
confidential information.
Psychologists discuss with persons the relevant limits of confidentiality.
Psychologists discuss confidential information only for appropriate scientific or
professional purposes, and only with persons clearly concerned with such matters.
Psychologists may disclose confidential information with the appropriate consent of
the individual or another legally authorized person on behalf of the participant, unless
prohibited by law.
American Psychological Association Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines for the Use and Treatment of
Human Participants in Research
3. Institutional Approval (Section 8.01)

When institutional approval is required, psychologists provide accurate

information about their research proposals and obtain approval prior to
conducting the research.

They conduct research in accordance with the approved research protocol.

American Psychological Association Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines for the Use and Treatment of
Human Participants in Research
4. Competence (Sections 2.01 and 2.05)
Psychologists conduct research with populations and in areas only within the
boundaries of their competence.
Psychologists planning to conduct research involving populations, area, techniques, or
technologies new to them undertake relevant education, training, supervised
experience, consultation, or study.
Psychologists who delegate work to research assistants take reasonable steps to
authorize only those responsibilities that such persons can be expected to perform
competently on the basis of their education, training, or experience, and see that such
persons perform these services competently
American Psychological Association Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines for the Use and Treatment of
Human Participants in Research
5. Record Keeping (Sections 6.01–6.02)

Psychologists create, and to the extent the records are under their control,
maintain, disseminate, store, retain, and dispose of records and data relating to
their scientific work in order to allow for replication of research design and
analyses and meet institutional requirements.

Psychologists maintain confidentiality in creating, storing, accessing,

transferring, and disposing of records under their control, whether these are
written, automated, or in any other medium.
American Psychological Association Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines for the Use and Treatment of
Human Participants in Research
6. Informed Consent to Research (Sections 3.10 and 8.02–8.04)

When psychologists conduct research, they obtain informed consent of the individual using language that is
reasonably understandable to that person except when conducting such activities without consent.

For persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent, psychologists nevertheless

(1) provide an appropriate explanation,

(2) seek the individual’s assent,

(3) consider such persons’ preferences and best interests, and

(4) obtain appropriate permission from a legally authorized person, if such substitute consent is permitted or
required by law.
American Psychological Association Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines for the Use and Treatment of
Human Participants in Research
When obtaining informed consent, psychologists inform participants about:

a. the purpose of the research, expected duration, and procedures.

b. their right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once
participation has begun.

c. the foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing.

d. reasonable foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence their

willingness to participate (such as potential risks,
American Psychological Association Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines for the Use and Treatment of
Human Participants in Research
When obtaining informed consent, psychologists inform participants about:
e. any prospective research benefits.
f. limits of confidentiality.
g. incentives for participation.
h. who to contact for questions about the research and research participants’
rights.
They provide opportunity for the prospective participants to ask questions and
receive answers.
American Psychological Association Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines for the Use and Treatment of
Human Participants in Research
Psychologists conducting intervention research involving the use of experimental
treatments clarify to participants at the onset of the research:
a. the experimental nature of the treatment.
b. the services that will or will not be available to the control group(s) if appropriate.
c. the means by which assignment to treatment and control groups will be made.
d. available treatment alternatives if an individual does not wish to participate in the
research or wishes to withdraw once the study has begun.
e. compensation for or monetary costs of participating
American Psychological Association Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines for the Use and Treatment of
Human Participants in Research
Psychologists obtain informed consent from research participants prior to
recording their voices or images for data collection

unless: (1) the research consists solely of naturalistic observations in public

places, and it is not anticipated that the recording will be used in a manner that
could cause personal identification or harm; or

(2) the research design includes deception, and consent for the use of the
recording is obtained during the debriefing (see also Standard 8.07, Deception in
Research).
American Psychological Association Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines for the Use and Treatment of
Human Participants in Research
When psychologists conduct research with students or subordinates as
participants, psychologists take steps to protect the prospective participants
from adverse consequences of declining or withdrawing from participation.

When research participation is a course requirement or an opportunity for extra

credit, the prospective participant is given the choice of equitable alternative
activities.
American Psychological Association Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines for the Use and Treatment of
Human Participants in Research
7. Dispensing with Informed Consent (Section 8.05)

Psychologists may dispense with informed consent only

(1) where research would not reasonably be assumed to create distress or harm, and involves

(a) the study of normal educational practices, curricula, or classroom management methods conducted in educational settings;

(b) only anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic observations, or archival research for which disclosure of responses would not
place participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or damage their reputation, and confidentiality is protected; or

(c) the study of factors related to job or organization effectiveness conducted in organizational settings for which there is no risk
to participants’ employability, and confidentiality is protected or

(2) where otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations

American Psychological Association Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines for the Use and Treatment of
Human Participants in Research
8. Offering Inducements for Research Participation (Section 8.06)

Psychologists make reasonable efforts to avoid offering excessive or

inappropriate financial or other inducements for research participation when
such inducements are likely to coerce participation
American Psychological Association Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines for the Use and Treatment of
Human Participants in Research
9. Deception in Research (Section 8.07)
Psychologists do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that the
use of deceptive techniques is justified by the study’s significant prospective scientific,
educational, or applied value, and that effective nondeceptive alternative procedures are not
feasible.
Psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about research that is reasonably
expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress.
Psychologists explain any deception that is an integral feature of the design and conduct of an
experiment to participants as early as is feasible, preferably at the conclusion of their
participation but no later than the conclusion of the data collection, and permit participants to
withdraw their data (see also Standard 8.08, Debriefing).
American Psychological Association Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines for the Use and Treatment of
Human Participants in Research
10. Debriefing (Section 8.08)
Psychologists provide a prompt opportunity for participants to obtain
appropriate information about the nature, results, and conclusions of the
research,
and then take reasonable steps to correct any misconceptions that participants
may have of which the psychologists are aware.
If scientific or humane values justify delaying or withholding this information,
psychologists take reasonable measures to reduce the risk of harm.
Clinical Equipoise
The basic concept is that clinicians have an ethical responsibility to provide the best possible treatment for their
patients.

However, many research studies evaluate and compare different treatment options by randomly assigning patients
to different treatments. If the clinician knows (or even believes) that one of the treatment conditions is inferior to
the others, then some patients are being denied the best possible treatment and the ethical principle of no harm is
being violated.

The solution to this dilemma is to conduct studies that only compare equally preferred treatments; this is the
principle of clinical equipoise.

This means that a researcher can compare treatments when:

a. there is honest uncertainty about which treatment is best.

b. there is honest professional disagreement among experts concerning which treatment is best.
Informed Consent

The principle of informed consent requires the investigator to provide all

available information about a study so that an individual can make a rational,
informed decision to participate in the study.
3 Components of Informed Consent

1. Information: Although some information may be disguised, concealed, or simply

unknown, it is essential that participants be informed of any known potential risks.

2. Understanding: Researchers must express their explanations in terms that the

participants can easily understand and should give the participants ample opportunity to
ask questions.

3. Voluntary Participation: it is especially important that the researcher explain to the

participants that they are completely free to decline participation or to leave the study at
any time without negative consequences.
Deception

Deception occurs when a researcher purposefully withholds information or misleads participants with regard to
information about a study.

There are two forms of deception:

1. Passive deception (or omission) is the withholding or omitting of information;

the researcher intentionally does not tell participants some information about the study.

2. Active deception (or commission) is the presenting of misinformation about the study to participants.

The most common form of active deception is misleading participants about the specific purpose of the study.
The APA guidelines identify three specific areas of responsibility:

1. The deception must be justified in terms of some significant benefit that outweighs the
risk to the participants. The researcher must consider all alternatives to deception and
must justify the rejection of any alternative procedures.

2. The researcher cannot conceal from the prospective participants information about
research that is expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress.

3. The researcher must debrief the participants by providing a complete explanation as

soon as possible after participation is completed.
Confederates are people who pretend to be participants in a research study but
actually work for the researcher.

Placebo is an ineffective, inert substitute.

A debriefing is a post-experimental explanation of the purpose of a study that is

given to a participant, especially if deception was used.
Confidentiality

Confidentiality is the practice of keeping strictly secret and private the

information or measurements obtained from an individual during a research
study.

Anonymity is the practice of ensuring that an individual’s name is not directly

associated with the information or measurements obtained from that individual.

Why is it important?
The different types of information we gather from
our participants can be categorized as follows:

• attitudes and opinions (e.g., politics and prejudices)

• measures of performance (e.g., manual dexterity, reaction time, and

memory)

• demographic characteristics (e.g., age, income, and sexual orientation)

To ensure the confidentiality of the data, usually, one of
the following two strategies is used:

1. No names or other identification appears on data records. This strategy is

used in situations in which there is no need whatsoever to link an individual
participant to the specific information that the participant provides.

2. Researchers use a coding system to keep track of which participant names go

with which sets of data. This strategy is used in situations in which it is
necessary to reconnect specific names with specific data at different times
during a research study.
In most research reports, the results are presented as average values that have
been collapsed across a large group of individual participants, and there is no
mention of any individual participants, code numbers, or code names.

In situations in which a single participant is examined in great detail, researchers

must take special care to preserve anonymity. In these situations, only the code
name or code number is used to identify the participant, and any description of
the participant is edited to eliminate unique characteristics that could lead to
individual identification.
2 Committees:

1. Institutional Review Board (IRB) is composed of both scientists and nonscientists.

The IRB examines all proposed research involving human participants with respect to
seven basic criteria.

If the IRB finds that a proposed research study fails to satisfy any one of the criteria, the
research project is not approved.

In addition, the IRB can require a research proposal be modified to meet its criteria before
the research is approved.

IRB approval must be obtained before any research is conducted with human participants.
7 basic IRB criteria:

1. Minimization of Risk to Participants.

The purpose of this criterion is to ensure that research procedures do not

unnecessarily expose participants to risk.

This may involve requiring the researcher to justify any component of the
research plan that involves risk, and the IRB may suggest or require alternative
procedures.
7 basic IRB criteria:

2. Reasonable Risk in Relation to Benefits.

The IRB is responsible for evaluating the potential risks to participants as well as
the benefits that result from the research.

The benefits include immediate benefits to the participants as well as general

benefits such as advanced knowledge.
7 basic IRB criteria:

3. Equitable Selection.
The purpose of this criterion is to ensure that the participant selection process does
not discriminate among individuals in the population and does not exploit vulnerable
individuals.
The issue for the IRB is not to ensure a random sample (although this should benefit
the researcher) but rather to ensure equal opportunity for all potential participants.
The concern with vulnerability is that some individuals (children and people who are
developmentally disabled, psychologically impaired, or institutionalized) might be easily
tricked or coerced into “volunteering” without a complete understanding of their
actions.
7 basic IRB criteria:

4. Informed Consent.

The goal is to ensure that participants receive complete information and

understand the information before they decide to participate in the research.

In addition, the IRB typically looks for a clear statement informing participants
that they have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.
7 basic IRB criteria:

5. Documentation of Informed Consent.

The IRB determines whether it is necessary to have a written consent form

signed by the participant and the researcher.
7 basic IRB criteria:

6. Data Monitoring.

During the course of the research study, the researcher should make provision
for monitoring the data to determine whether any unexpected risks or causes of
harm have developed.

In some research situations, the researcher should monitor the testing of each
individual participant so the procedure can be interrupted or stopped at the first
indication of developing harm or danger.
7 basic IRB criteria:

7. Privacy and Confidentiality.

This criterion is intended to protect participants from the risk that information
obtained during a research study could be released to outside individuals
(parents, teachers, employers, and peers) where it might have embarrassing or
personally damaging consequences.

The goal is to guarantee basic rights of privacy and to ensure confidentiality for
the participants.
2 Committees:

2. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)

is a committee that examines all proposed research with respect to its treatment
of nonhuman subjects.

The IACUC approval must be obtained prior to conducting any research with
nonhuman subjects.
APA Ethical Principles for the Humane Care and
Use of Animals in Research

a. Psychologists trained in research methods and experienced in the care of

laboratory animals closely supervise all procedures involving animals and are
responsible for ensuring appropriate consideration of their comfort, health, and
humane treatment.
APA Ethical Principles for the Humane Care and
Use of Animals in Research

b. Psychologists ensure that all individuals under their supervision who are using
animals have received instruction in research methods and in the care,
maintenance, and handling of the species being used, to the extent appropriate
for their role.
APA Ethical Principles for the Humane Care and
Use of Animals in Research

c. Psychologists make reasonable efforts to minimize discomfort, infection,

illness, and pain of animal subjects.
APA Ethical Principles for the Humane Care and
Use of Animals in Research

d. Psychologists use a procedure subjecting animals to pain, stress, or privation

only when an alternative procedure is unavailable and the goal is justified by its
prospective scientific, educational, or applied value.
APA Ethical Principles for the Humane Care and
Use of Animals in Research

e. Psychologists perform surgical procedures under appropriate anesthesia and

follow techniques to avoid infection and minimize pain during and after surgery.
APA Ethical Principles for the Humane Care and
Use of Animals in Research

f. When it is appropriate that an animal’s life be terminated, psychologists

proceed rapidly, with an effort to minimize pain, and in accordance with accepted
procedures
Fraud in Science

Error vs. Fraud

What is the difference?

Error vs. Fraud

It is important to distinguish between error and fraud.

An error is an honest mistake that occurs in the research process.

Fraud, on the other hand, is an explicit effort to falsify or misrepresent data.

Why Do Researchers Commit Fraud?

Why Do Researchers Commit Fraud?

The primary cause of fraud is the competitive nature of an academic career.

In addition, researchers must obtain significant findings if they hope to publish
their research results or receive grants to support their research.
Another possible motivator is a researcher’s exceedingly high need for success
and the admiration that comes along with it.
Researchers invest a great deal of time and resources in conducting their
studies, and it can be very disappointing to obtain results that cannot be
published.
Safeguards against Fraud

1. Replication is repetition of a research study using the same basic

procedures used in the original. Either the replication supports the original study
by duplicating the original results, or it casts doubt on the original study by
demonstrating that the original result is not easily repeated
Safeguards against Fraud

2. A second safeguard against fraud is peer review, which takes place when a
researcher submits a research article for publication.
Safeguards against Fraud

3. A third safeguard against fraud is the verification of data through the sharing
of research data.
Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the unethical representation of someone else’s ideas or words as

one’s own
THANK YOU!