This assessment critically evaluates two peer-reviewed journal articles concerning ethics in research. The first is “Publication pressure versus ethics, in research and publication” by Bahl and Bahl (2021), and the second is entitled “Research and publication ethics in developing countries” by Sharma and Ghimire (2021). The two research articles go deeply into ethical issues, with a particular emphasis on health science and the writings that stem from it. Interestingly, both pieces aim at what they see as researcher malpractice and agree that some accountability structure has to be established.
In their article, Bahl and Bahl (2021) bring up ethics, arguing that medical educators and students would do well to apply ethical discipline in the classroom. Sharma and Ghimire (2021) agree with Bahl and Bahl (2021) on the need for ethics in research and accountability, but they place more emphasis on the methods and sources employed by researchers as an alternative to direct accountability. According to Sharma and Ghimire (2021), all parties involved in a study’s production—including investigators, funders, ethics reviewers, printers, and editors—should collaborate for the sake of accuracy and transparency. According to Bahl and Bahl (2021), institutions should create an Academic Misconduct Panel to examine plagiarism claims and report their findings to the Plagiarism Reporting and Disclosure Unit. The disciplinary unit should have the power to enforce sanctions, given the gravity of the problem posed by the conduct and publication of research. While both articles make valid arguments about the issues of research misconduct and unethical practices, they fall short when it comes to proposing a workable solution to the persistent problem of shaky evidence.
By referencing many cases of research material misconduct in India, Bahl and Bahl (2021) provide convincing real-world examples that give nearly instant credibility to their claim. While they support the introduction of punishments to ensure research ethics, they fail to provide any concrete examples of actual penalties being handed out. Nevertheless, they strengthen the argument that medical staff should shoulder more of the burden when dealing with inappropriate behavior. Throughout their work, Bahl and Bahl (2021) emphasize the need to adhere to ethical standards in the medical community. They claim that researchers will conduct thorough, credible, and insightful studies if they stick to ethical standards.
In their article, Sharma and Ghimire (2021) make an effort to show the various safeguards that exist to make sure researchers are acting ethically. They appear to have a heightened awareness of research and publication ethics, which have recently been strongly debated topics around the globe. They zero in on developing countries and believe they have special difficulties in encouraging ethical research that is relevant to their needs while discouraging publications with insufficient rigor. Concerns that unethical practices entail, among other misconducts, using one’s work without ‘authority or due reference’ seem well-founded.
Although it appears that Bahl and Bahl’s (2021) work is sound in its continuous focus on creating a foundation of ethics at the school level, it falls short of accurately illustrating the best possible action with respect to punishment. As the article progresses, many of the players in the field are painted as people perpetuating unethical practices, but no outstanding solution is offered. Bahl and Bahl (2021) affirm that official entities controlling professions have associated the number of articles published with career advancement, putting significant pressure on the medical fraternity to report in terms of volume, consequently lowering the quality of research. The strength of their work lies in its underlying notion of learned discipline, which, they argue, would produce ethical students and, ultimately, principled professionals. An individual’s commitment to ethical behavior is likely to remain consistent throughout their career if it has been ingrained in them through habit and routine.
According to Bahl and Bahl (2021), the type of required ethical research helps students and, eventually, working researchers figure out what is and is not acceptable in their field. The lack of a practical solution sticks out, despite the firm belief that laying a solid groundwork in educational institutions is the answer. They are essentially reiterating what is currently an issue and worry in research methodologies without offering a novel answer to the underlying challenge. The vast majority, if not all, are aware that it is against the law and morally repugnant to publish someone else’s work.
Both publications provide flawed reasoning for their opposing positions on the topic of researchers being exempt from appropriate punishment. Numerous people have been publicly criticized and even sued for plagiarism or data manipulation. To suggest otherwise is to disregard the countless successful lawsuits brought against individuals for allegedly stealing the work of others without authorization. Plagiarism is a widespread problem, as evidenced by the many studies that can be found with a quick Google search. Moreover, in the twenty-first century, there is a plethora of digital validation methods to choose from. The available plagiarism checkers use advanced technology to compare one writer’s work to the rest of the world.
Despite the inaccuracies in the article by Sharma and Ghimire (2021), credible research networks in underdeveloped nations have been gaining pace and strength for more than a decade. As people all across the world have been referencing previously released research from developing countries to prove their case, this seems to render their argument baseless. Credible research in developing nations has also aided in the dissemination of novel concepts, facilitated the identification of issues and acceptable solutions, and offered valuable frameworks to direct thought and action. The authors go on to say that research conducted in low-income nations may not adhere to ethical guidelines because of issues with control and consent. The information gleaned from these sources is automatically discounted as suspect. Researchers interested in a particular subject would do well to tally up the feedback of actual users of the publication in question. Sharma and Ghimire (2021), like Bahl and Bahl (2021), offer merely critique rather than development, as they do not provide a clear solution to a problem that is generally understood.
Most people, even those not part of a study setting, know that rules and regulations must be followed. This is irrespective of whether they pertain to the subject of medicine or health, as discussed in the two articles, or some other fields of study. The two peer-reviewed articles agree that meeting ethical principles and sticking to accepted norms is possible. Both pieces raise essential issues related to ethics, morality, and plagiarism, but none of them offers a forward-thinking solution to the problem. The authors of these two articles raise a problem without providing a particularly novel resolution, instead opting to merely discuss it without any dazzling thought to the future. The problem is not developing nations, publication pressure, or even scholars plagiarizing other research studies; rather, no one seems to solve the underlying predicament.
References
Bahl, R., & Bahl, S. (2021). Publication pressure versus ethics, in research and publication. Indian Journal of Community Medicine: Official Publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine, 46(4), 584-586. Web.
Sharma, M. R., & Ghimire, N. (2021). Research and publication ethics in developing countries. Nepal Journal of Neuroscience, 18(3), 3-9. Web.