


































Microsoft Word - Sheikh Arslan Reseasrch Ethics


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2016; 7(2):35-38 

 

35 

 

Short communication 

We Still Need to Improve Our Research Writing Ethics 

 

Sheikh Arslan Sehgal 

Department of Bioscience, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology Sahiwal Pakistan 

State Key Laboratory of Biomembrane and Membrane Biotechnology; Institute of Zoology; 

Chinese Academy of Sciences; Beijing, China 

University of Chinese Academy of Sciences; Beijing, China 

Email: arslansehgal@yahoo.com 

 

Abstract: The aim of current effort is too sentient that the people should have to know what is 

happening and to explore the reasons behind the veil of reasons so they can generate and amend 

their opinions and deduce their own conclusions. The most worthy asset of a researcher is to 

publish valuable research and must first be earned the scientific professional integrity and then 

maintained it. The scientific community must obey the scientific ethical norms and rules if they 

want to play its due role. Still, we are bearing ethical quandaries in our research and we have to 

solve them for advancement of research in scientific community including Pakistan. 

Keywords: plagiarism, ethical issues, authorship issues, data fabrication 

Introduction: Breaches of publication ethics such as redundant publication, authorship issues, 

plagiarisms and data fabrication are recognized forms of research misconduct that can undermine 

the scientific literature 1. 

Still, we are facing the ethical dilemmas in our academic and research work. The research 

misconducts where data is manipulated for never or fallaciously performed experiment, has been 

traced from many sides of World 2. We must change such an environment and teach our students 

the international, institutional and professional standards regarding research and research 

methodologies. An overlooked research misconduct; freakishly least or nearly become 

untraceable; is the authorship issues 3. Such construing effect of research misconduct with 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2016; 7(2):35-38 

 

36 

 

respect to authorship is a big problem where the credit of real researcher is being haunted by 

research feudal. A gap has been produced to fill which tangible need to define basic ethics has 

emerged. To cope such issues, some basic ethics needs to be aware and followed for betterment 

of research work in scientific community including Pakistan. 

Observed Issues: Faculty/supervisor should discuss the research work and publication credits 

with students throughout the research work and publication process. Such understanding between 

supervisor and student will become a helpful tool for research progress. The authorship should 

reflect the contribution of the authors 4. Usually, the faculty members overvalue their 

contributions to the projects and mostly in authorship situation. Genuinely, both the parties 

believe that they are right. The supervisor should take the credit only for the work to which they 

have substantially contributed and they have actually performed. The write-up of the publication 

or minor contributions to the research should be acknowledged appropriately in appropriate 

sections 5. If student substantively contributes to the conceptualization, design, execution, 

analysis or interpretation of the research reported, they should be listed as authors 6. Usually, 

senior lab-members, supervisor’s good friends, department chairperson, supervisor’s relatives 

and favorite students share the authorship without any contributions 5. The same rule applies to 

the students not to share the authorship with their best friends without contributions. In contrast, 

as result of supervisor’s unnatural feudalistic dictatorialness, students are infusing themselves 

with the trend to take over supervisor by dismantling his authorship. Such trend produces bad 

effect in scientific community which in turn aggressively taken by supervisors as offence.  

There are many other least observed issues that are genuinely not research misconducts, but 

disturb research enhancement, like some supervisors even do not start the project of the students 

at appropriate time. 

Suggestions to scientific community: The supervisor and student should keep the research 

theme, idea, results and interpretations confidential. Researchers should have to be honest in all 

scientific communications. Report the data, results, methods and procedures honestly. 

Misrepresenting, falsification, and fabrication of data should be discouraged at every stage.  It is 

not ideal to deceive public, science, sponsors, research and colleagues.  



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2016; 7(2):35-38 

 

37 

 

Student should always try to be unbiased in write-up, decisions, peer review, data interpretation, 

data analyses, experimental design and other aspects of research work. Students should always 

keep their agreements, words and promises and act with sincerity. Avoid careless negligence, 

errors and erratum.  

If nessecerily important, be confidential with the findings till it’s published but conversely and 

needfully share the resources, tools, equipment and basic useful data. Students should always 

show patience for criticism.   

Scientific community should always show honor and respect to the intellectual properties 

including patents and copyrights. Do not cite unpublished results and methods without author 

permission. Properly mention the credits and acknowledgments to the contributors.  

Researchers should publish the data for the advancement of research and science rather than to 

enhance and/or advance their own career and funds. Also they should avoid publishing 

duplicative and wasteful data. 

Discrimination should always be avoided, discouraged, and bumped off among students and 

colleagues on the basis of favoritism, ethnicity, race, religion, sex or any other factors that could 

destroy one’s scientific integrity and competence.  

If you are the journal manuscript reviewer, then it’s your duty to make that idea and work 

confidential. If you receive the manuscript of your friend, you should have to review it with 

unbiased decision. 

Conclusion: Research should be pure from data fabrication and misconducts for the 

advancement of science. Supervisors and students have to perform their duties, experiments and 

contributions honesty. Both the parties should not cheat and ditch each other for the betterment 

of research work.  

Acknowledgements: Sheikh Arslan Sehgal acknowledges Mirza Ahmad Hammad and Rana 

Adnan Tahir, Bioinformatics Research Laboratory, Department of Biosciences COMSATS 

Institute of Information Technology Sahiwal, for their guidance and suggestions. 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2016; 7(2):35-38 

 

38 

 

References: 

1. Wager, E., Fiack, S., Graf, C., Robinson, A. and Rowlands, I., 2009. Science journal 

editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey. Journal of medical 

ethics, 35(6), pp.348-353. 

2. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/research_integrity/research_misconduct.htm 

3. Al-Adawi, S., Ali, B.H. and Al-Zakwani, I., 2016. Research Misconduct: The Peril of 

Publish or Perish. Oman medical journal, 31(1), p.5. 

4. https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-

publication-ethics/2-2-authorship-and-authorship-responsibilities/ 

5. Shamima P Lasker. Preceding s of Bioethics and Humanity (Pernas 8 JBHKI & ABC17). 

Indonesia. Nov 2016. 

6. http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan03/principles.aspx 

 

Conflict of Interest: Declared None. 

Author’s contribution: Author developed the idea and wrote the manuscript. 

 


