RESUMEN
Plagiarism allegations are not rare in the history of science, and credit for prior work was and continues to be a source of disputes, involving notions of priority of discovery and of plagiarism. However, consensus over what constitutes plagiarism among scientists from different fields cannot be taken for granted. We conducted a national survey exploring perceptions of plagiarism among PhD holders registered in the database of the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. This survey was sent to 143,405 PhD holders across the fields, in the sciences, engineering, humanities, and arts, with a response rate of about 20%. The results suggest that core principles about plagiarism are shared among this multidisciplinary community, corroborating Robert K. Merton's observations that concerns over plagiarism and priority disputes are not field specific. This study offers insight into the way plagiarism is perceived in this community and sheds light on the problem for international collaborative research networks. The data focus on a particular research system in Latin America, but, given the cultural similarities that bind most Latin American nations, these results may be relevant to other PhD populations in the region and should provide an opportunity for comparison with studies from other emerging, non-Anglophone regions.
Asunto(s)
Plagio , Mala Conducta Científica , Humanos , Brasil , Humanidades , Ingeniería , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of academic training on decision-making in a group of undergraduates who have undergone training in endodontics and implantology. BASIC PROCEDURES: A single group of undergraduate dentistry students (n = 65) was given a survey consisting of 15 endodontic cases. Each case included periapical radiographs and clinical photographs. Students were asked to select one of the eight proposed treatments. In their 4th year, the students first responded to the survey after completing endodontics. One year later, after completing their studies in implantology, the same students completed the same survey again. MAIN FINDINGS: Under the conditions of this study, differences in undergraduate training significantly affected treatment decisions. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: Undergraduate decision-making was affected by academic training.
Asunto(s)
Competencia Clínica , Implantes Dentales , Educación en Odontología/métodos , Endodoncia/educación , Australia , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Estudiantes de OdontologíaRESUMEN
We discuss prior publication and redundancy in contemporary science in the context of changing perceptions of originality in the communication of research results. These perceptions have been changing in the publication realm, particularly in the last 15 years. Presenting a brief overview of the literature, we address some of the conflicts that are likely to arise between authors and editors. We illustrate our approach with conference presentations that are later published as journal articles and focus on a recent retraction of an article that had been previously published as a conference proceedings. Although we do not make definitive pronouncements on the matter-as many concepts are evolving-we do argue that conference papers that contain sufficient details for others to attempt a replication and are indexed in scientific databases such as PubMed, challenge some currently held assumptions of prior publication and originality in the sciences. Our view is that these important issues are in need of further clarification and harmonization within the science publishing community. This need is more evident when we consider current notions of research integrity when it comes to communication to peers. Revisiting long-standing views about what constitutes prior publication and developing a clearer set of guidelines for authors and editors to follow should reduce conflicts in the research environment, which already exerts considerable pressure, especially on newcomers in academia. However, while clearer guidelines are timely, developing them is only part of the challenge. The present times seem to call for deeper changes in the research and publication systems.
Asunto(s)
Ética en Investigación , Edición/ética , Ciencia/ética , Mala Conducta Científica , Humanos , PublicacionesRESUMEN
The aim of this study was to compare the microtensile bond strength of three different total etch adhesives: XP Bond (Caulk-Dentsply) versus Excite (Ivoclar/Vivadent) and Prime & Bond NT (Caulk-Dentsply). Forty two (42) third human molars were cut to expose the dentinal surface. They were divided into three groups of 14 teeth (GI: XP Bond, G2: Excite, G3: Prime & Bond NT) and two groups of seven teeth for each moisture condition: moist dentin (GM) and dry dentin, (GD). The total-etch technique was used with each moisture variation. The adhesives and composites A3 (Ceram Duo GI, G3 and Tetric Ceram G2) were applied according to manufacturer's instructions. Teeth were cut with an ISOMET 1000 (Buehler Ltd.) to obtain 1 mm2 x 10 mm bars, which were subject to a traction test at 5 mm/min in a universal testing machine (Adamel Lhomargy DY 36). The collected data were recorded and analyzed using an experimental design for studying two factors offixed effrcts with software Statgraphics version 5.1. For the variable type of adhesive, we found p = 0.000, for the variable substrate condition, p = 0.0012, and for interaction between both factors, p = 0.0457, which indicates significant statistical differences. The values for microtensile bond strength were G1M = 55.0642 MPa Standard deviation (SD) 3.09768; G1D 39.115 MPa SD 2.86789; G2M 34.1607 MPa SD 2.86789; G2D = 32.7373 MPa SD 2.77065; G3M 3 7.3407 MPa SD 2.86789 and G3D = 31.0593 MPa SD 2.77065. XP Bond showed the greatest values of micmtensile bond strength under both conditions. Moist substrate increases the values of micmtensile bond stren gth]br the adhesives tested; howeve, Excite shows lower susceptibility to variation of dentinal moisture.