Plagiarism In Psychology
The ethical dilemma reported in this example relates to the proprietary rights of professionally written material in that an expert in a specialty area of psychology was entrusted to review and assess a manuscript written by a newer psychologist. Along with providing the new practitioner with very critical and somewhat disparaging feedback on the piece, the expert also recommended not submit the manuscript for publishing as well. Almost a year later, however, the newer psychologist ran across an article in publishing that was reportedly written by the expert, although a large portion of the writing had clearly been plagiarized from the exact same manuscript the expert reviewed so harshly (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2016). Not surprisingly, the conduct of the expert in this case example discernably violates a number of standards of the APA (2010) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. According to Standard 8.11, plagiarism
…show more content…
constitutes an unethical behavior, so the misrepresentation of another person’s concepts or ideas in which a practitioner claims them as their own works against the standards and principles of ethical practice within the field of psychology (APA, 2010). In situations where a psychologist wishes to incorporate another author’s material and/or data into their work, such as in this case example, the ethical approach would involve the application of publication credit(s) as appropriate. The guidelines proposed in Standard 8.12, however, outlines the expectations and responsibilities of the psychologist as it relates to publication credits in publishing (APA, 2010). In this case, the expert’s actions only further violate the standards because the reviewer neither sought out permission to use the material nor they give the newer psychologist credit for any part of the publication. The expert psychologist also breaches Standard 8.15, which suggests that reviewers have the ethical responsibility to evaluate material with both accuracy and fairness, while also protecting the sanctity of the material with confidentiality (APA, 2010). Finally, the expert’s conduct clearly opposes many of the ethical principles of promoting integrity, justice, and/or respecting the rights and dignities of individuals in professional practice in demonstrating a purposeful and intentional act of plagiarism. Even though there is no way to efficiently and effectively rectify this situation, especially since the material is already out there for everyone to read, one thing the newer psychologist can do is to confront the expert with allegations of plagiarism.
If, for some reason, the new psychologist is uncomfortable with this option, however, the only other thing they could do is to report the plagiarism to either the ethics or licensing board for further investigation. In the off chance that the plagiarism was, in fact, accidental (although that seems highly unlikely in this case) than the expert psychologist could also issue a revision to the publication which could reflect the publication credit that the newer psychologist rightly deserves. It would also be advisable for the expert to write an apology for her actions as well. Considering the low probability of repetitive material, though, the expert more than likely took advantage of her position and authority because she figured the new psychologist was an easy
target. According to Koocher and Keith-Spiegel (2016), “cases of improper acquisition of material, compounded by the apparently intentional blocking of competing work, are rare. However, the trustworthiness of reviewers is critical because of the temptation to misappropriate ideas or materials from works under review” (p. 324). Therefore, the expert reviewer would likely benefit from reading the APA (2010) Standards, as well as the state and federal laws regarding publication, copyright, and plagiarism, in order to ensure that anything else they attempt to publish later on does not mispresent their work or provide similar materials as other articles already been published by other professionals working within the same capacity, field, or specialty (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2016). If or when the expert psychologist decides to use another researcher’s data or materials as a reference, however, it would be best to seek out the appropriate permissions as necessary and maintain due diligence in crediting sources to further prevent allegations of plagiarism in the future.
constitutes an unethical behavior, so the misrepresentation of another person’s concepts or ideas in which a practitioner claims them as their own works against the standards and principles of ethical practice within the field of psychology (APA, 2010). In situations where a psychologist wishes to incorporate another author’s material and/or data into their work, such as in this case example, the ethical approach would involve the application of publication credit(s) as appropriate. The guidelines proposed in Standard 8.12, however, outlines the expectations and responsibilities of the psychologist as it relates to publication credits in publishing (APA, 2010). In this case, the expert’s actions only further violate the standards because the reviewer neither sought out permission to use the material nor they give the newer psychologist credit for any part of the publication. The expert psychologist also breaches Standard 8.15, which suggests that reviewers have the ethical responsibility to evaluate material with both accuracy and fairness, while also protecting the sanctity of the material with confidentiality (APA, 2010). Finally, the expert’s conduct clearly opposes many of the ethical principles of promoting integrity, justice, and/or respecting the rights and dignities of individuals in professional practice in demonstrating a purposeful and intentional act of plagiarism. Even though there is no way to efficiently and effectively rectify this situation, especially since the material is already out there for everyone to read, one thing the newer psychologist can do is to confront the expert with allegations of plagiarism.
If, for some reason, the new psychologist is uncomfortable with this option, however, the only other thing they could do is to report the plagiarism to either the ethics or licensing board for further investigation. In the off chance that the plagiarism was, in fact, accidental (although that seems highly unlikely in this case) than the expert psychologist could also issue a revision to the publication which could reflect the publication credit that the newer psychologist rightly deserves. It would also be advisable for the expert to write an apology for her actions as well. Considering the low probability of repetitive material, though, the expert more than likely took advantage of her position and authority because she figured the new psychologist was an easy
target. According to Koocher and Keith-Spiegel (2016), “cases of improper acquisition of material, compounded by the apparently intentional blocking of competing work, are rare. However, the trustworthiness of reviewers is critical because of the temptation to misappropriate ideas or materials from works under review” (p. 324). Therefore, the expert reviewer would likely benefit from reading the APA (2010) Standards, as well as the state and federal laws regarding publication, copyright, and plagiarism, in order to ensure that anything else they attempt to publish later on does not mispresent their work or provide similar materials as other articles already been published by other professionals working within the same capacity, field, or specialty (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2016). If or when the expert psychologist decides to use another researcher’s data or materials as a reference, however, it would be best to seek out the appropriate permissions as necessary and maintain due diligence in crediting sources to further prevent allegations of plagiarism in the future.