The following case study was published by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics): Editor A wrote to editor B, indicating that one of the reviewers of a paper submitted to Journal A contained material that had been submitted at about the same time to Journal B. Editor A requested a copy of the paper submitted to Journal B. Editor B responded, confirming that the paper in question had been submitted to Journal B (submission date two weeks earlier than the paper submitted to Journal A),
In an article published in 2007, Peter Adams proposed a decision-making framework known as 'PERIL'. Peter Miller summarises Adams' PERIL framework as follows: Purpose refers to the degree to which purposes are divergent between funder and recipient. For example, if the primary purpose of the recipient is the advancement of public good, receiving funds from dangerous consumption industries such as tobacco, alcohol and gambling will probably conflict with this purpose. Similarly, the risk is mitigated partially if the funder has a clear public good role.
Section 3.1 ('Plagiarism and self-plagiarism') of the HKU Policy on Research Integrity contains the following: Plagiarism is the use of another person’s work (including but not limited to any materials, creations, ideas and data) as if one’s own without due acknowledgement, whether or not such work has been published and regardless of the intent to deceive; Self-plagiarism is the reuse of one’s own work without acknowledging that such work has been submitted elsewhere. References to what could constitute plagiarism can be found in the University
In Cojocaru v British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre  2 S.C.R. 357, the trial judge's decision copied significant parts of the Plaintiffs' submissions (although he did not accept all of their submissions). The trial judge did not, however, attribute the incorporated material to its original author. The trial judge did discuss some issues and concluded in his own words. The Defendants were held to be liable in negligence. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia held, by a majority, that the trial judge's
The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (jointly published by the European Science Foundation and ALL European Academies (ALLEA)), and to which the HKU Policy on Research Integrity makes reference in Section 2) defines plagiarism in Section 2.2.4 ('Integrity in science and scholarship: misconduct') as: "the appropriation of another person's ideas, research results or words without giving appropriate credit. The precise wording of an idea or explanation or illustrative material (such as original figures and photographs, as well as lengthy tables) in textbooks or
Facts The researcher was an associate professor in the Department of Asian and International Studies at the City University of Hong Kong (CityU). She was also Associate Director of the Southeast Asian Research Centre (SARC) at CityU. In 2006, SARC obtained a grant of HK$53 million from the British Government to conduct a research project, 'Women's Empowerment in Muslim Contexts'. The Defendant (D) was the main person responsible for the project. D requested quotations from four service providers for the supply of IT services for the project,