Center for Distance Education Research & Application
Maltepe University

Ethical Rules



All attempts to undermine the value and credibility of a scientific research are referred to as scientific misconduct. Scientific deception occurs in two ways, both of which are equally dangerous and ethically unacceptable [1-2]:

  • Scientific negligence/indiscipline research (scientific negligence/sloppy research)
  • Scientific diversion/intentional fraud (scientific fraud/deliberate dishonesty)

Scientific negligence and scientific diversion are explained by examples below.


Scientific Negligence

Scientific neglect (undisciplined research) is the scientific deception that arises as a result of the researches without fully fulfilling the requirements of scientific research. In scientific negligence, the researcher is not intentionally providing false information due to lack of knowledge, skills or experience; therefore, not only does it mislead others scientifically, but also deceive themselves [1].

The fact that the experimental process is not carried out properly or that appropriate statistical techniques are selected to analyze research data can be cited as an example of scientific negligence. Analyzing research data with an inappropriate statistical technique (for example, using a parametric technique when a non-parametric technique is required) can result in statistically significant but completely incorrect findings. Similarly, in an experimental study, experimental practice in the first group and experimental practice in the second group can have different consequences for that group, with other variables involved in the work (for example, more time to a group or to present a different environment). If this result is interpreted as more effective in one of the groups, it may be completely incorrect.


Scientific Diversion

Scientific diversion, deliberately deflecting the processes or consequences of scientific research; therefore, it is to disrupt the recursability of the research and the credibility of the research findings [3]. Although not involved in the experimental process, the addition of additional applications that may affect the results of the experimental application may be cited as an example of scientific diversion related to the research process. Diversions related to the results of the research are collected in three groups [1]:

  • Distortion (falsification/fudging): Distortion is the modification of certain data points in the study, for example, statistical data to prevent accurate results.
  • Cloaking (finagling): Hiding is that some of the findings obtained as a result of the research, especially the findings that do not appear in accordance with the expectations of the researcher, are not reported.
  • Fabrication (forgery/fabrication): Fabrication is the fact that data that is not collected in the research appears to have been collected.

None of the above-mentioned diversions about the findings, no matter how trivial it may appear, are unacceptable. In other words, scientific diversion is a fraud, albeit mild ly or severe.



Scientific overclocking (plagiarism) is called scientific overclocking (4-5], using the works of others (or oral, written or other means such as painting, music, opinions, suggestions, information, graphics, computer programs, works of art, etc.), without expressly or deliberately modifying their resources [4-5].

Scientific overclocking; full overrun, scientific piracy and inerting from itself can occur.

  1. Full overrun (complete plagiarism): By putting their own name into another study, the full overrun name is called [6].
  2. Scientific piracy: Scientific hacking is called scientific piracy, if other researchers use their data in their study without permission, without citing sources or, in cases that require permission [2].
  3. Self-plagiarism: These deliberate ethical errors can also occur in the form of overclocking from one's own works. This is called overclocking from itself.

In overclocking itself, iteration (duplication) and slicing (at least publishable unit) are divided into two. The recurrence is the same publication of a published work elsewhere; slicing means that a published study is fragmented into pieces and re-published each part separately. It should also be avoided to send a study to multiple magazines at the same time, which is one of the most common initiatives that cause such problems. What to do to avoid any scientific overruns is described below [4-5]:

  • Taking advantage of other people's opinions and suggestions; taking advantage of non-verbal information, such as statistics, graphics, or pictures; In each of the ways in which others benefit from oral/written rhetoric, it is necessary to clearly show the source of the information.
    • In such exploits, the author must express the information contained in the source in which he uses it with his own words and form of expression (rephrasing/paraphrasing). In this process, it is not enough to relocate only a few words or use other words that mean the same.
    • In cases where other people's verbal/written rhetoric is used exactly, it is necessary to clearly indicate the source of the information and the number of the quoted page. To indicate that the same quote is quoted, short quotes that do not exceed several lines (for example, 40 words by APA [7]) must be given in sentences and/or paragraphs and by quoting quotes. Long quotes should be given in a separate paragraph and in a different type (e.g., tireli, tabled, or frequently).
  • To use the table or shape in another source in a study, the source and number of the quoted page must be written open, just below the table or shape used.
  • In addition to showing resources, if required by legal obligations such as copyright, etc., permission must be obtained from the person or organization that holds the copyright.
  • Common knowledge common knowledge common information common information in a society is not required to source when using verbally or in writing [8,9]. Education is one of the most important social institutions, as in the case.




When determining author names and sequences, primary and secondary contributors to a study must be identified; primary contributors must be co-authors; secondary contributors or organizations should be thanked [10]

The following describes the primary and secondary contributions.


Primary Contributions

Primary contributions include:

  • Reporting the research
  • Designing the research; to create research purposes and tries
  • In experimental research, configure and/or execute the experimental process
  • Designing and executing statistical analyses
  • Interpreting the findings
  • Write a specific part of the research report

In co-authored studies, it should be taken into account the degree to which each author contributes to the research in the ordering of author names. If each author's contribution is roughly equal, the author's names must be sorted in alphabetical order and this should be specified in the footnote. If the contributions of authors are not equal, author names should be sorted from the most contributor to the least contributor. In co-authored studies, all authors are responsible for the entire study.


Secondary Contributions

Secondary contributions include:

  • Designing or configuring tools
  • Consulting on statistical analysis
  • Conducting studies for data collection only (taking part in the experimental process, conducting surveys, entering the data, etc.).

If a study is an intensive secondary contribution in several areas by a person, that person should be considered co-author.

Although it does not meet the requirements of co-authorship, it is ethically unacceptable for a person's name to be written as co-authors for various reasons (for example, applying pressure, expectation of interest, recognisability, etc.).



In research using participants and/or subjects, ethically acceptable objectives and appropriate tools must be selected to achieve these purposes [11]. However, all corporate directors in which research is carried out on such participants and subjects have obligations to facilitate, monitor and audit the conduct of research in accordance with ethical rules. Below are the ethical guidelines that must be followed in research conducted with people.



Academic thesis consultant; in all phases of the thesis study and in its relations with the candidate, it must comply with the scientific ethical criteria outlined below:

  • In their relationship with the candidate, honesty, misorientation, responsibility, principled academic behavior should be based on and guide him by reflecting these behaviors on to the candidate.
  • He should know that the candidate's responsibility for the execution, completion and content of the candidate's work is at least as much as the candidate and in accordance with this, he should share this responsibility at every stage of the candidate's work.
  • The candidate should ensure that science works in accordance with universal principle and honesty, supervised in terms of scientific study ethics, and take a firm stance against behaviors that do not conform to scientific ethics.
  • He should not use the thesis study or the data related to the study in his own research without the student's knowledge and permission, and should not allow others to use it.
  • Evaluation, management, routing, etc. should not delay any stage of the processes intentionally or due to apathy.




  1. html
  2. Kansu, E., and Ruacan, Inc. (2000). Scientific Deception: Types, Causes, Prevention, Punishment. Republican Science-Tech, 712, 4-5.
  7. American Psychological Association (1994). Publication Manual (4th edition). Washington DC: American Psychological Association
  10. Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources (1996). Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

(The principles of these rules are based on anadolu university's guide to science ethics.