Nurse Education Today (2008) 28, 218226

Nurse Education Today

intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/nedt

Academic and research misconduct in the PhD: Issues for students and supervisors
Theresa Mitchell
a

a,*

, Jude Carroll

Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of the West of England, Room 1MD08, Hartpury Campus, Gloucestershire, England GL19 3BE, United Kingdom b Assessment Standards Knowledge Exchange, Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom
Accepted 11 April 2007

KEYWORDS
PhD supervision; Academic; Research; Misconduct

Summary There are many pressures upon PhD students not least the requirement to make an original or signicant contribution to knowledge. Some students, confronted with complex research processes, might adopt practices that compromise standards that are unacceptable within a research community. These practices challenge the PhD studentsupervisor relationship and have implication for the individual, the supervisory team, the institution, the awarding body and the wider research context. Discussion relating to misconduct within the PhD is of international importance if the aim is to encourage and facilitate rigorous research practice. Cases involving academic and research misconduct, especially those occurring at PhD level, are likely to become more frequent as numbers of PhD students increase and will demand appropriate, defensible responses from supervisors. Misconduct during PhD study can be difcult to resolve because of lack of clarity in denitions, supervisor na vete and failure to acknowledge students decision making limitations. Using scenarios from the rst authors supervisory practice to illustrate issues of concern for students and supervisors during PhD supervision, the authors aim to illuminate the importance of engagement with regulatory bodies; problems of knowledge and understanding transfer; culturally specic issues and meanings of academic theft. c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 01452 702168/177. E-mail address: Theresa.Mitchell@uwe.ac.uk (T. Mitchell).

The aim of this paper is to illuminate the issues that present everyday quandaries during supervision of PhD students as they and their supervisors

0260-6917/$ - see front matter c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2007.04.003

Academic and research misconduct in the PhD: Issues for students and supervisors negotiate research processes. It highlights the need to anticipate such events and notes with concern the absence of international standards to deter students from academic misconduct which are tailored to the specic needs of the PhD research student and their supervisor. There are many pressures upon PhD students, not least the requirement to make original or signicant contributions, and to produce research that reects the researchers originality. This is often demonstrated through theory development, presenting new perspectives upon accepted theories, and developing new knowledge. Some students, confronted with these perhaps daunting tasks, might take short-cuts or otherwise adopt practices that compromise standards during the research process. The literature conrms that shortcuts, corner-cutting and unacceptable practices are especially likely when PhD students worldwide are pressured by time, funding worries, and the need to attain high levels of personal and professional success in relation to academic longevity and respect (Chop and Silva, 1991; Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead, 1995; Harman, 2003; Bennett, 2005). Decisions by students that lead to misconduct also arise when requirements are misunderstood (Park, 2003), when students lack the skills necessary to comply with requirements (Pennycook, 1998; Robinson and Kuin, 1999; Angellil-Carter, 2000) and when the students goals are in conict with those of the assessor or regulator (Saltmarsh, 2004). There is ample evidence to justify concerns about rising levels of academic misconduct in general (Fly et al., 1997; Park, 2003; Sheard et al., 2003; Carroll, 2004) but less about breaches of Governance especially during research conducted by health-related professionals (DH, 2001; 2005). Hansen and Hansen (1995) state that the incidence of research misconduct is likely to be grossly under reported particularly where instances involve graduate students or post doctoral students. Although in the British medical community, research misconduct has historically been associated with the medical profession (Smith, 1998), we think it is likely that similar misbehaviour to that found amongst medics and medical students (Coverdale and Henning, 2000) will emerge as nurses and other professionals allied to medicine develop research proles themselves and as more students pass through the expanding UK doctoral provision. Data obtained from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA, 2006) in the UK indicate a 3.5% increase in doctorate research qualiers between 2003/4 and 2004/5 (14,995 and 15,520, respec-

219

tively). Despite decreases in enrolment in engineering, mathematics and technology disciplines in Europe, PhDs in social and behavioural sciences are steadily increasing (Yavuz, 2004). China and Japan have seen incredible increases of up to 578% in doctoral enrolment (Moguerou, 2005). Concern about the possible increase in unacceptable behaviours within research degree programmes may be one reason why the Higher Education Funding Council for England authored Improving Standards in Postgraduate Research Degree Programmes (HEFCE, 2002). The document identies a general increase in the number of doctorates awarded between 1996 and 2000 and notes that those who undertake research degrees in the emerging disciplines do not have a tradition of PhD training to build upon (p7). These new and sometimes na ve doctoral researchers must rely heavily on the skill and expertise of their supervisor(s) who may, given the context outlined above, be equally recently accredited researchers. Lack of supervisor familiarity with the rules and culture of research may be one explanation for the sometimes reactionary and mechanistic methods employed when confronted with research and/or academic misconduct. If, as the literature predicts, such encounters are likely to occur more frequently in future, there is an acute need for supervisors to prepare for dealing with events such as falsication of data, fabrication of data, deception and misrepresentation and to anticipate dealing with misconduct such as plagiarism. Supervisors should anticipate the possibility of students they supervise may make decisions, intentionally or unintentionally, that transgress Governance issues and fail to comply with accepted research conduct requirements. This paper considers issues of misconduct illustrated in four scenarios developed from the rst authors supervisory practice in a UK Higher Education Institution. These scenarios (a) illuminate the importance of engagement with regulatory processes, (b) identify problems of knowledge or understanding transfer, (c) raise awareness of culturally specic issues that might arise during study for a PhD and (d) explore meanings of academic theft. These scenarios have been useful as a focus for reection for us as authors and, because they are examples from everyday supervisory practice, are likely to resonate with other supervisors. The scenarios prompted a literature search using search terms academic, research, misconduct, plagiarism, PhD and supervision in the following databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, Ovid Online and THES.

220

T. Mitchell, J. Carroll are overlooked, as the following scenario illustrates (Box 1). Box 1. Scenario A A research student obtained ethics committee approval at the beginning of the research process. However, the research design evolved over a period of a year, and it became necessary to return to participants using a different data collection technique. The student continued to collect data and the PhD thesis was subsequently submitted on time. In this case, it is clear that a regulation has been breached. Under the New Operational Procedures for NHS Research Ethics Committees (RECs) (COREC, 2004) all substantial revisions and amendments to proposed research, whether before or after the research has started, must be reported to the Ethics Committee from which approval was given using a standard amendment form. The students research misconduct, if brought to the attention of the REC, could have resulted in withdrawal of ethical approval and intermission of the students research degree. The supervisory team would have been in breach of their responsibilities outlined by the Research Governance Framework, and in the worst case, the Research Sponsor may have had to pay indemnity to compensate participants. Research students may not be aware of activities and behaviours that might constitute research misconduct which, according to The Committee On Publication Ethics Report (COPE, 1998), includes failing to conduct an adequate search of existing research before beginning a new project, and not publishing completed research. These minor examples of research misconduct are more likely to occur in everyday supervisory practice than more serious breaches such as data tampering or deception which are more usually associated internationally with medical research. However, regardless of the severity of the breach, the role of supervisor is that of regulator, acting as someone who is familiar with the processes to facilitate the students engagement with governing bodies and who can ensure compliance with RECs, Data Protection, Caldicott Principles and Indemnity. The Working Group on Ethical Review of Student Research in the NHS (WGERSRNHS, 2004) also emphasises that any breach of the regulations, or actions taken which compromise standards, would be regarded as a disciplinary matter for both supervisor and student (p9).

Engagement with regulatory processes

Various UK professional bodies have issued information, policy and guidance concerning healthcare and postgraduate research misconduct but these are largely within the remit of the organisation itself (for example; The Institute of Clinical Excellence; The Central Ofce for Research Ethics Committees; Committee on Publication Ethics; Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education). In 1998 Rennie et al. suggested that the UK learn from the United States experience where the Ofce of Research Integrity oversees and enforces compliance to regulations governing research. This results in a dependence upon law rather than the scientic community to deal with research misconduct. Similar directives have been transposed into UK law through the development of the Research Governance Framework (RGF) (Department of Health (DH), 2001; 2005) although there are contentious issues relating to this (Warlow, 2005). In the advent of Research Governance and the development of guidelines and documentation for student projects in the New Operational Procedures for NHS Research Ethics Committees (Central Ofce for Research Ethics Committees (COREC)) governance and regulation of research students projects would become more rigorous and would have implications directly related to supervisory teams. Once new operational procedures are in place, a Director of Studies for instance is designated Chief Investigator, and becomes the person with overall responsibility for research on behalf of the Research Sponsor. Members of the supervisory team may require honorary contracts with the institution in which the research is to be conducted before the research student collects data. Criterion 5 of the RGF stipulates care providers and universities that employ clinical academic staff should make joint arrangements for appointment, supervision and appraisal (DH, 2003, p14). Criterion 6 is concerned with data protection, and research supervision teams should be aware of the regulations concerned with taking data away for analysis from the institution in which it was collected. Research students might work with person identiable data in their own homes which disregards data condentiality and the Data Protection Act (1998). It also means that students are in breach of the Act if they work in the university with person identiable data obtained within the National Health Service (NHS). Given the amount and changing nature of the regulations, it is perhaps unsurprising that they

Academic and research misconduct in the PhD: Issues for students and supervisors The scenario illustrates how student and supervisor are jointly responsible for the students conduct within systems that rely on individuals having the necessary knowledge and experience to ensure ethical practice. In addition, the supervisor needs to attend to the wider cultural, nancial, healthcare and educational context within which the supervision relationship is located. There is concern that post graduate student research in the NHS has not received the ethical governance and regulation of other applications submitted to Research Ethics Committees (REC). The WGERSRNHS document draws attention to the unsystematic, patchy and often incoherent nature of review of student project applications. It emphasises the potential volume of research student projects in health and social care in the future when all the healthcare disciplines (dentistry, medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, psychology, radiography, social care) and academic levels (Bachelors, Masters, PhD) are taken into account. Governance Arrangements for Research Ethics Committees (GAfREC) remind supervisors that all projects, regardless of experience level or intention of the researcher, must be submitted to Ethics Committee scrutiny so as to ensure consistency. These arrangements propose that research student projects could be most effectively regulated through the creation of Student Project Ethics Committees (SPECS). Prior to submission of a proposal to this committee, the students supervisory team are well placed to contribute to evaluation of the ethical implications of proposals whose goals are primarily educational (WGERSRNHS, 2004, p7). The way in which breaches of Governance are dealt with however, appears to be subject to the particular institutions research culture and the degree of intrinsic exibility.

221

Problems of knowledge or understanding transfer

Scenario A showed how a student could inadvertently breach Governance, perhaps through their own, or their supervisors ignorance, despite there being a wealth of local and national guidance and regulation to deter such actions. Students and supervisors either did not know of the rules or, for whatever reason, did not comply with them. Academic misconduct presents quite different challenges for a supervisor. Academic or authorial misconduct may, like the previous scenario, be deliberate or inadvertent (University of the West of England/Faculty of Health

and Social Care, 2006/2007) and would apply to a range of actions. The next scenario concerns itself with plagiarism, also described by Chop and Silva (1991) as irresponsible authorship (p167). At face value, the denition of plagiarism appears clear-cut. Smith (1999, p777) denes plagiarists as people who publish the work of others and claim it as their own and others offer similar wording (Stefani and Carroll, 2001). Smith has equally succinct views as to the motivation of a plagiarist, noting such activity is immoral, unethical and illegal (p777). The apparent clarity as to denition and motivation does not necessarily help research supervisors. For example, by including the act of publication in the denition, Smith locates the breach at the end of the research process and highlights the emphasis of health-related literature on plagiarism in manuscripts for peer-reviewed journals. For example editorials by Kralik (2003), Krauss (2003), Mason (2002), McMillan (2000), Morris (1994), Oberst (1997) and Smith (1997, 1999) in a variety of journals draw attention to the rising number of manuscripts which claim the work of others as the authors own. Editors concern is that the trend may accelerate as healthcare professionals publish more regularly. In contrast to the concern about journals, plagiarism at PhD level is probably under-reported. One reason may be that it is not automatically seen as publication but instead is regarded as a teaching issue. Another may be that no one is looking for it, a point made by Hawley and Jeffers (1992) and despite the intervening years and much publicity, may still be the case. Supervisors may be unable to recognise unattributed borrowing should the students research stray outside their own expertise. When confronted with unfamiliar material, a supervisor is more likely to assume its inclusion has been authenticated through the students own efforts. Assessors encountering material outwith their own expertise may assume that it was developed by the student through immersion in the data, and authenticated through reference to other literature and discussion during supervision. If this happened, the material would allow the student, in terms of Smiths denition, to claim ownership. Krauss (2003) refers to accepted and commonly used rules of scholarship (p247) as if these are uncontested matters. Of course in some instances this is the case such as in the matter of copyright but, as Smith (1997, p1) notes, Unfortunately, there is no copyright for ideas . . . authors can still nd themselves in difcult situations if they knowingly use other peoples ideas without acknowledging them. It might also affect career prospects and

222 future publication possibilities. Smith (1997) and Mason (2002) make the same point, linking giving credit where credit is due with intellectual honesty. The intellectual property debate argues that the product of his or her mental labours is just as much his or her property as would be the product of physical labour (Morris, 1994, p83). These matters are complex and are potentially open to many interpretations and as such, usefully explored via scenarios where specicity forces agreement by consensus (or lack of it) as to appropriate action. A scenario often encourages more explicit understanding of ones own and others assumptions and beliefs, as in Scenario B, as to what makes ideas the students own (Box 2). Box 2. Scenario B A student had spent considerable time developing a philosophical framework for her PhD research between registering her project and undertaking the progression viva. She presented her ideas to the supervisory team over several months during which time it became clear that she understood the options available to her and how her methodological choices would be affected. The supervisory team were impressed by her careful consideration of all aspects of the research and by time and effort she invested in her PhD. She produced several pieces of work for discussion with the supervisory team and when asked, was happy to present her ideas and resulting philosophical framework at a Research Students Seminar. The seminar went well so well in fact, that another student at the PhD registration stage, announced that she would be using the framework for her own research. The incident was brought to the next supervision meeting because the presenting student was distressed about the appropriation of material she regarded as her own. In Smiths (1997) terms, no plagiarism had occurred because there had not yet been, in either students case, publication. It seems clear, however, that ideas were appropriated. Is this an example of plagiarism rising from (in Masons (2002 p7) terms) irresponsible authorship or even intellectual dishonesty? Here, the supervisor wears two hats: that of ensuring ethical conduct and that of awarding academic credit. The scenario is useful to allow students and supervisors to consider whether appropriating someone elses effort, even if correctly attributed,

T. Mitchell, J. Carroll would meet the denition of ones own work for the second student. There are many instances in PhD level research where students use others models and frameworks; the student then applies or develops others work, thereby demonstrating originality. In the case of the presenting student in Scenario B, the incident could prompt better understanding of what is accepted and indeed, valued in academic discussions. A term like commonly used rules of scholarship (Krauss, 2003) assumes the meaning is clear but novice researchers may need help to understand that academic discourse relies on sharing ones efforts with others with the express purpose of allowing others to use the ideas to underpin and develop their own. During the supervisory relationship, and mindful of the evolving understanding of the PhD candidate, a supervisor can offer some degree of intellectual protection by keeping records of discussions which, over time, generate an audit trail of an individual students development. The team would be aware of the context of the research, the depth and breadth of reading achieved by the student, and the development of the research questions and design of the study, but this would be usefully augmented by contemporary records.

Culturally specic issues in the PhD study

Whereas the last scenario explored the underpinning meaning of plagiarism concerned with making work ones own, the next prompts review of the description of plagiarism as immoral, unethical and illegal (Smith, 1999, p777) (Box 3). Box 3. Scenario C A PhD student whose rst language was not English presented written work for discussion by the supervisory team. The document largely comprised disjointed paragraphs and lacked overall coherence. Some paragraphs were poorly punctuated and grammatically incorrect. When this was identied by the supervisory team, the student admitted that he found it difcult to rewrite important extracts from the relevant literature (which he saw as beautifully written). He felt his own English did not allow equivalent expression. The supervisory team had already noted this students need for far more direction than native English speaking students who were familiar with the UK research system and postgraduate environment.

Academic and research misconduct in the PhD: Issues for students and supervisors In this scenario, the student had clearly plagiarised but it is much less clear whether this students actions constitute academic misconduct and even less clear as to whether the students actions were immoral, unethical and illegal. It is possible that this was a deliberate attempt to gain unfair advantage by cheating. It is more likely, however, that their copying and submission of a document which left a patchwork approach to writing so evident, arose from different factors. These probably include a poor understanding of attribution requirements (the so called common research practice expected of them) as well as inadequate skills to comply with the requirements even if they had understood them. The needs of international students for additional guidance and support with academic writing are well documented (Ryan, 2000; Carroll and Ryan, 2005). Although programmes for research supervisors are increasing in the UK, Europe and Australia (Manathunga, 2005), international quality assurance of supervision for research students is yet to be addressed. This is because, in part, traditional and cultural expectations of the PhD are different. Students, especially those working at postgraduate level in an academic culture different from their previous experiences and in English as an additional language, frequently need help with a range of skills. Harman (2003) reports that international students identied language, cultural adjustment and less structured research direction as sometimes problematic within the British model of PhD provision. During the writing apprenticeship, many international students need guidance on how to locate appropriate literature, take extracts from texts to support their arguments, acceptably paraphrase others ideas as well as the ner points of in-text citation. There are also additional pressures upon the individual and institution when international students are funded for full time study and must complete their research on time. An active, interventionist approach needs to recognise that new researchers (in this case, new also to the UK) adhere to different cultural norms about originality and acceptable writing prior to embarking on a PhD. This particular student moved from an academic culture where accurate reproduction of others texts was highly valued and where variation in the accepted version was punished (Handa and Power, 2005). Now the opposite was required. Transition in such a situation can be assumed to be difcult and the new skills unlikely to develop quickly. The extra help mentioned in the scenario, therefore, can be seen as a reasonable requirement rather than a sign of further unacceptable behaviour and early contraventions

223

can be reasonably congured as misunderstanding rather than misconduct. The scenario allows exploration of issues such as how supervisors identify specic skill gaps and whether they recognise the importance of early, tailored intervention rather than waiting until the student nds their feet. Referral to English language specialists and frequent requests to practice writing skills such as paraphrasing or structuring texts may be useful (Schmidt, 2005). Such targeted, activity-based interventions would certainly alert the student to the requirements of UK academic writing before they faced possible public censure. In the advent of an increase in enrolments of fee paying international PhD students, support through the supervisor-student relationship has come under scrutiny. The UK Council for Graduate Education has acknowledged the need for supervisors to explore possible and appropriate responses to problems arising from this group of students and have recently provided a workshop entitled Management and Supervision of International Postgraduate Students (UKCGE, 2006).

Academic theft
Academic thievery can present in different guises and for a variety of reasons, not least due to pressure to publish because of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in UK universities. The literature on plagiarism stresses that one should be aware that if an original work is accepted for publication by one journal, and subsequent work relating to the same or similar research for instance, is published in another, it is possible that copyright law has been violated. Mason (2002) notes that using ones own material similarly in two separate accounts can constitute self plagiarism and intellectual dishonesty. However, in the PhD context, calling this practice self plagiarism is problematic since PhD students are encouraged to use and build upon their previous work as a signal of their continued professional development. Using ones own appropriately referenced work in a PhD thesis demonstrates credibility in the subject area and builds condence in the student that their ideas are of equal value to others (Oberst, 1997). In-house peer review strategies within universities contribute to high quality publications and provide authors with constructive feedback prior to submission to a journal. Although peer review is unlikely to detect potential academic fraud, it is likely to assist writers with structure, ow of material, relevance and suitability.

224 It is not unusual for healthcare researchers/academics to write with their clinical colleagues. In this situation both have a contribution to make and a responsibility to differentiate the two in style and content. The Copyright Act (1976) denes joint work as a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contribution be merged into separate whole or independent parts of a unitary whole (Oddi and Oddi, 2000, p223). Where this is the case, co-authorship benets the PhD student and the Supervisor; but there must be equal effort from each contributor. This is inherently problematic in an uneven power and experience relationship such as supervision. There has been a tradition in the past for PhD students to write an article and insert the name of their supervisor as second author. Gift authorship is currently considered academic misconduct because signing as an author who has made little contribution to the work is deception in the reporting of research (Smith, 2000). Even though the student consents to co-authorship, the power relationships are such that insurance cannot be given against coercion, at any level. Perhaps more serious than this is the stealing of a students work by a member of the supervisory team which seems to be the motivation in Scenario D (Box 4). Box 4. Scenario D A student was three years into part time PhD studies and had worked consistently throughout. Unfortunately, she was forced to request a change of one of her supervisors who had continually tried to shape the research according to their own knowledge and interests. This individual was replaced by a supervisor who was sympathetic to her methodological approach, and the team continued to support the student during the remainder of her PhD. About a year before completion the student identied an article written by her previous supervisor that contained a review of the literature very similar to one she had presented to the supervisory team in the early stages of her PhD development. Although supervisors invest considerable energy and time in a PhD students work, use of elements of that work for whatever outcome is unacceptable. The role of the supervisory team is one of peer review (van Rooyen, 2001) with regard publication of PhD material by students. There is expectation that supervisors demonstrate trust, respect and

T. Mitchell, J. Carroll integrity in relation to assisting publication by a student. Indeed, the RGF (DH, 2005) identies that it is the responsibility of the Chief Investigator to accept a key role in detecting and preventing misconduct by adopting the role of guarantor on published outputs. Authorship credit, Kwok (2005) argues, should be considered after due attention to the criteria developed by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE, 2004). They recommend that a co author should have (1) made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) assisted with drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and (3) provided nal approval of the version to be published (Kwok, 2005, p554). The problem of relying on individual supervisory teams, local authorities and national standards means that there will be inconsistencies in the absence of an international code of co-authorship conduct. Within the researchersupervisor nexus, it is more likely that regular discussion amongst colleagues will lead to heightened vigilance that such parasitism can happen and speedier reactions ensue when it does.

Conclusion
The authors expect that cases involving academic and research misconduct, especially those occurring at PhD level, are likely to become more frequent and will demand appropriate, defensible responses from supervisors. Reference to the international literature and published UK Governance remind supervisors that both are crucial to ensuring their students and they themselves act within accepted guidelines. However, in some cases, applying general regulations or generic concepts to the specic circumstances and contexts of postgraduate supervision proves challenging. At the most obvious level, scenarios such as those presented here are difcult to resolve. This is due, in part, to the lack of clarity in denitions of misconduct such as plagiarism. They are also difcult to resolve as the outcomes could have serious negative consequences for the students and/or supervisors subsequent research career. Difculties as to clarity and consequences can be resolved by improved engagement with regulatory processes, by ensuring supervisors know their responsibilities and by establishing the limits of students decision-making. They are also amenable to collegial discussion seeking consensus and shared understanding of, for

Academic and research misconduct in the PhD: Issues for students and supervisors example, the amount of help it is legitimate to offer a student struggling with a new way of writing or what is meant by an assessment criteria that species the students work be their own. However, in a few cases, vigilance and external control will be necessary to ensure compliance with ethical standards and to address the uneven power differential between supervisor and researcher. A second area of difculty for research supervisors is less amenable to resolution as it reects the dual nature of the supervisory role. On the one hand, the supervisor must understand the rules and expectations and ensure the student complies with them. This requires attention to dates, ensuring a record is kept of the research process and drawing students attention to relevant regulations. On the other hand, a supervisor is an agent of socialisation for PhD researchers, helping them understand why the regulations matter and unpicking with them the tacit and implicit knowledge that underpins common research practice so that by the end of supervisory relationship, the accredited PhD holder will not only be able to comply with regulations but will understand and adhere to the values and assumptions that underpin them as a result of personal commitment.

225

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Professor Margaret Miers and Dr. Jon Pollock for commenting on an earlier draft of this article.

References
Angellil-Carter, S., 2000. Stolen Language. Longman, Harlow, UK. Bennett, R., 2005. Factors associated with student plagiarism in a post 1992 university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 30 (2), 137162. Carroll, J., 2004. Deterring, detecting and dealing with student plagiarism. <http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=pub_ plagiarism> (accessed Feb 2006). Carroll, J., Ryan, J. (Eds.), 2005. Teaching International Students: improving learning for all. Routledge, London. Central Ofce for Research Ethics Committees, 2004. New Operational Procedures for NHS RECs. <http://www.corec. org.uk> (accessed March 2006). Chop, R.M., Silva, M.C., 1991. Scientic fraud: denitions, policies and implications for nursing research. Journal of Professional Nursing 7 (3), 166171. Committee on Publication Ethics, 1998. The COPE Report. Annual Report. BMJ Publishing Group, London. Coverdale, J., Henning, M., 2000. An analysis of cheating behaviours during training by medical students. Medical Teacher 22 (6), 582584. Data Protection Act 1998 <http://www.hmso.gov.uk> (accessed March 2006).

Department of Health, 2001a. Research Governance Implementation Plan. DH London. <http://www.doh.gov.uk/research/ documents/rd3/resgovimpplan.pdf> (accessed Feb 2006). Department of Health, 2001b. Governance Arrangements for NHS Research Ethics Committees. Department of Health, London. Department of Health. 2003. Research Governance Criteria. Crown Copyright. Department of Health. 2005. Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care. second ed., Crown Copyright. Department of Health, London. Fly, B., van Burk, W., Weinman, L., Kitchener, K., Lang, P., 1997. Ethical transgressions of psychology students: critical incidents with implications for training. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 28 (5), 492495. Franklyn-Stokes, A., Newstead, S.E., 1995. Undergraduate cheating: who does what and why. Studies in Higher Education 20 (2), 159172. Handa, N., Power, C., 2005. Land and discover! a case study investigating the cultural context of plagiarism. Journal of Teaching and Learning Practice 2 (3b) <http://jutlp.uow.edu.au/> (accessed Feb 2006). Hansen, B.C., Hansen, K.D., 1995. Academic and scientic misconduct: issues for nursing educators. Journal of Professional Nursing 11 (1), 3139. Harman, G., 2003. International PhD students in Australian universities: nancial support, course experience and career plans. International Journal of Educational Development 23, 339351. Hawley, D.J., Jeffers, J.M., 1992. Scientic misconduct as a dilemma for nursing. IMAGE: Journal of Nursing Scholarship 24 (1), 5155. Higher Education Funding Council for England. 2002. Improving standards in post graduate research degree programmes. Higher Education Standards Authority, 2006. <http://www.hesa.ac.uk/holisdocs/publinfo/stud.htm> (accessed Feb 2006). International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (ICMJE) 2004. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals; Writing and editing for biomedical publication. <http://www.icmje.org>. Kralik, D., 2003. Editors note: Cyberplagiarism. . .what is it? Journal of Advanced Nursing 43 (6), 539. Krauss, J.B., 2003. A Reminder About Scholarly Integrity. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing XV11 (6), 247248. Kwok, L.S., 2005. The White Bull effect: abusive authorship and publication parasitism. Journal of Medical Ethics 31, 554556. Manathunga, C., 2005. The development of research supervision: turning the light on a private space. International Journal for Academic Development 10 (1), 1730. Mason, D.J., 2002. Stealing words. American Journal of Nursing 102 (7), 7. McMillan, I., 2000. Editorial. Nurse Researcher 8 (1), 3. Moguerou, P., 2005. Doctoral and postdoctoral education in science and engineering: Europe in the international competition. European Journal of Education 40 (4), 367 392. Morris, S., 1994. Copyright: plagiarism, photocopying and piracy. Physiotherapy 80 (2), 8384. Oddi, L.F., Oddi, A.S., 2000. Student-faculty joint authorship: ethical and legal concerns. Journal of Professional Nursing 16 (4), 219227. Oberst, M.T., 1997. Plagiarism, hornblowing, and the history of ideas. Research in Nursing and Health 20, 95. Park, C., 2003. On other (peoples) words: plagiarism by university students literature and lessons. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 28 (5), 471488. Pennycook, A., 1998. English and the Discourses of Colonialism. Routledge, London.

226
Rennie, D., Evans, I., Farthing, M.J., Chantler, C., Chantler, S., Riis, P., 1998. Dealing with research misconduct in the United Kingdom. British Medical Journal 316, 17261733. Robinson, V.M.J., Kuin, M., 1999. The explanation of practice: why Chinese students copy assignments. Qualitative Studies in Education 12 (2), 193210. Ryan, J., 2000. Teaching International Students. Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University. Saltmarsh, S., 2004. Graduating tactics: theorizing plagiarism as consumptive practice. Journal of Further and Higher Education 28 (4), 445454. Schmidt, D., 2005. Writing in the international classroom. In: Carroll, J., Ryan, J. (Eds.), Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for All. Routledge, London. Sheard, J., Markham, S., Dick, M., 2003. Investigating differences in cheating behaviours of IT undergraduate and graduate students: the maturity and motivation factors. Higher Education Research and Development 22 (1), 91108. Smith, J., 1997. References, copyright and plagiarism. Journal of Advanced Nursing 26 (1), 1. Smith, J., 1999. Plagiarists publish and perish. Journal of Advanced Nursing 30 (4), 777778. Smith, R., 1998. The need for a national body for research misconduct. British Medical Journal 316, 16861687.

T. Mitchell, J. Carroll
Smith, R., 2000. What is research misconduct? (COPE Report) <www.bmjpg.com/publicationethics/COPE> (accessed October 2006). Stefani, L., Carroll, J., 2001. A Brieng on Plagiarism In LTSN Generic Centre Assessment Series. United Kingdom Council for Graduate Education, 2006. Workshop advertisement; Management and Supervision of International Postgraduate Students. <http://www.ukcge.ac.uk> (accessed October 2006). University of the West of England, Faculty of Health and Social Care 2006/2007. Post Graduate Modular Programme Student Handbook September. UWE Bristol. van Rooyen, S., 2001. The evaluation of peer-review quality. Learned Publishing 14 (2), 8591. Warlow, C., 2005. Should research ethics committees be observing the law or working by ethical principles? Research Ethics Review 1 (1), 2326. WGERSRNHS, 2004. Working Group on Ethical Review of Student Research in the NHS. NHS National Patient Safety Agency. The Ethical Governance and Regulation of Student Projects; A Draft Proposal. Central Ofce for Research Ethics Committees. 2002. <http://www.corec.org.uk> (accessed March 2006). Yavuz, M., 2004. Nursing doctoral education in Turkey. Nurse Education Today 24, 553559.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com