Question 1: Plagiarism in the digital age (1 page)
What do you see as the greatest challenge(s) for defining plagiarism in the Digital Age?
Explain your rationale and support your viewpoints with material gathered from at least one additional source (e.g., from the current literature, newspaper articles, perspective articles, etc.).
Make sure to cite your source.
Question 2: Something Looks So Familiar! – A case-study on Plagiarism (1 page) case-study: please find the attachment under the document name Something Looks So Familiar! for reference.
1. What are the ethical issues raised by the case?
2. Why does it matter what Dr. Sims writes in his proposal? After all, it is not a published work.
3. Should this case be considered research misconduct?
Question 3: Hydrolevel – A case-study on Conflict of Interest (2 page total) case-study: please find the attachment under the document name Hydrolevel for reference.
1. How could McDonnell and Miller, Inc. have avoided the appearance of a conflict of interest? This applies to both Mitchell and James.
2. What was T.R. Hardin’s responsibility as chair of the B-PV Code Heating Boiler Subcommittee? How could he have handled things differently to protect the interests of ASME?
3. What can engineering societies do to protect their interests once a conflict of interest is revealed?
4. Was the final judgment against ASME fair? Why or why not?
5. Have ASME’s revised conflict-of-interest procedures addressed the problems fully? Why or why not?
Question 4: Collaboration and Research Misconduct (2 pages total) Please explore some key issues surrounding research misconduct that prevailed in the prominent case of Jan Hendrik Schön, a physicist at Bell Labs who was found guilty of falsifying and fabricating data in at least 17 separate publications.
For reference material on the case of Jan Hendrik Schön, please find the attachment under the document name > Bell Labs Fires Star Physicist Found Guilty of Forging Data, > Collaboration and Research Misconduct > Read the research misconduct information developed by the Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning (Links to an external site.) especially with respect to the case of Bell Labs researcher Jan Hendrik Schön
1. Do you agree with the Review Committee’s decision to clear Schön’s co-authors of the charges of research misconduct? Explain your rationale.
2. What are some ways that professional collaborations can be managed to reduce the possibility of research misconduct?
3. How do cases of research misconduct impact the institution where the misconduct took place?
4. Finally, using material gathered from at least one outside resource (e.g., current literature, newspaper articles, perspective articles, the http://ori.hhs.gov, website, etc.), comment on the impact that research misconduct has in today’s society (e.g., the prevalence of research misconduct; the cost of research misconduct investigations; etc.). Please make sure to cite your source(s). You may use any citation format that you prefer.
Do you need urgent help with this or a similar assignment? We got you. Simply place your order and leave the rest to our experts.