TENK kirjoitti 3.7.2020 lehdelle Journal of Academic Ethics, kirje oli nimetty Erja Mooren artikkelin korjauspyynnöksi. Kirjeessä ei kuitenkaan nimetty kohtaa, jossa artikkelissa olisi virhe, vaan kirje lähinnä moittii artikkeliani ja toimintaani plagiointitutkijana. Yritin saada TENK:ltä lausuntoa asiasta ja samalla kirjoitin kirjeen sisällöstä täällä blogissa 18.12.2020 otsikolla Lausuntopyyntö Tutkimuseettiselle neuvottelukunnalle. No, eipä TENK sitten lausunut mitään ja kirjoitin siitäkin lausumattomuudesta 1.4.2021 otsikolla TENK ei lausu - kolme (naista) jääväsi itsensä.
Artikkelini julkaistiin siis vuonna 2019 söhköisenä versiona (paperisena vuonna 2020) ja se oli käynyt ennen julkaisua läpi referee-menettelyn kuusi kertaa, kaksi arvioijaa ensinnäkin antoi palautteen konferenssiesityksen pitkästä abstraktista, ennen kuin esitys hyväksyttiin konferenssiin. Sitten kaksi refereetä antoi palautteen esityksen perusteella tehdystä artikkelista, joiden perusteella artikkeliani ehdotettiin lehteen Journal of Academic Ethics, jossa artikkeli kävi läpi normaalin arviointimenettelyn (2 refereetä). TENK kuitenkin piti artikkeliani julkaisun jälkeen niin huonona, että he lähettivät tämän alla olevan kirjeen lehdelle ja kirjoittivat siihen useita, lähinnä minua mollaavia valheita. Kirjeessä on julkaistavaksi tarkoitettu osa ja salassa pidettäväksi tarkoitettu osa, lukaiskaapas alta.
Etusivulla jo logiikka pettää, ja sävy on lähinnä itkuinen. Kirjoittajat ajattelevat että olen ollut epäreilu paitsi lehteä kohtaan myös TENK:a ja suomalaista HTK-ohjetta kohtaan! On epäreilua, että teen ilmoituksia plagiointiepäilyistä, koska TENK:n mielestä ammattikorkeakoulut olivat jo korjanneet toimintaansa eikä ilmoituksia enää olisi saanut tehdä vuoden 2018 jälkeen. Tässä kirjeessä TENK syyttää minua monista rikkomuksista, mutta TENK ei kuitenkaan ole tämän jälkeen ottanut esille esim. tässä kirjeessä esittämäänsä syytöstä GDPR-rikkomuksesta. Kirjeessä TENK sanoo myös tälle USA:laiselle lehdelle, että Suomessa olisi kahdet eri menettelyohjeet vilpin käsittelyyn, toiset tieteelle ja toiset koulutukselle, mikä on tietysti valhe. Ja kirje päättyy hauskasti: TENK sanoo huomauttaneensa myös IPPHEA-projektia vääristä tuloksista Suomen osalta.
Lehdestä oltiin minuun yhteydessä ja lähetin tietysti vastauksen evidenssin kanssa. Kaikki tekstiäni aiemmin arvioineet kuusi refereetä ja vielä seitsemäs lehden nimeämä uusi referee lukivat artikkelini, eivätkä he löytäneet yhtään korjattavaa virhettä. TENK:n lähettämää kirjettä pidettiin kummallisena (valtiollisena) sensuuriyrityksenä. Lopulta lehti päätyi, minun kanssani neuvoteltuaan, ottamaan toisesta liitteestä nimikirjaimet pois. En tiedä, mitä he kirjoittivat TENK:lle, toivottavasti jotain :)
****
Request for correction concerning the article by Erja Moore published in 2019, titled
Inconsistent Responses to Notifications of Suspected Plagiarism in Finnish Higher
Education, Journal of Academic Ethics (2020) 18:1–16
TO THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF THE JOURNAL
Dear Dr Poff,
We hope this finds you well. We are reaching out regarding the 2019 article by Erja Moore,
which unfortunately includes serious issues. As a body of specialists appointed by the
Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, the Finnish National Board on Research
Integrity TENK considers it its responsibility to correct certain factual errors and to flag
certain methodological issues in Moore’s article. We respectfully ask that you publish the
corrections we have listed below. TENK is the highest supervisory authority of scientific
misconduct in Finland, and all Finnish universities and universities of applied sciences have
committed to following TENK’s national guidelines under the self-regulatory system that is
in place in Finland.
Erja Moore is not a researcher in any organisation committed to TENK’s guidelines. In
collecting data for her article, Moore made 27 notifications of suspected plagiarism to
Finnish universities of applied sciences. In doing so, she correctly brought up deficiencies in
thesis supervision at Finnish universities of applied sciences. The institutions addressed these
issues as soon as their attention was drawn to said cases of suspected plagiarism, by for
example increasing staff training.
However, Erja Moore’s actions raise certain ethical questions. TENK considers that in
failing to mention her own role as whistleblower, Moore has, on false grounds, taken unfair
advantage of 1) the Journal of Academic Ethics, which published the article, and 2) the Finnish
process for handling suspected violations of responsible conduct of research, in that she
continued to make notifications of suspected plagiarism to universities of applied sciences
even after they had reacted to the issue, in order to collect data for her own purposes.
APPENDED for your perusal is a more detailed itemisation of the problematic issues in
Moore’s article.
Helsinki 3.7.2020
Riitta Keiski Sanna-Kaisa Spoof
Chair, Dean Secretary General, PhD
Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK
Further information: sanna-kaisa.spoof@tenk.fi
2
CORRECTIONS (may be published)
The Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK considers it its responsibility to
correct certain factual errors in Erja Moore’s 2019 article Inconsistent Responses to
Notifications of Suspected Plagiarism in Finnish Higher Education, Journal of Academic Ethics
(2020) 18:1–16.
Researchers in Finland are bound not only by TENK’s Responsible conduct of research and
procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland (the so-called RCR guidelines),
but also by The ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in
the human sciences in Finland. Erja Moore’s article is problematic in light of these
guidelines. TENK is particularly concerned about the following factors:
1. The main ethical problem of the article concerns the atypical data collection
method. The data consists of 28 RCR investigation process documents. The author
fails to mention that she herself acted as the whistleblower in all but one of these
cases. The data consists of the investigation materials of the RCR processes that
were instigated by these notifications. These include for example textual
comparisons made by the author herself.
This type of data collection method is highly unusual and ethically problematic.
TENK hopes that such a data collection method will not become commonly used in
the fields of research that for example the Journal of Academic Ethics represents.
2. With regard to the contents of the published article, we consider it unethical that the
anonymization of the research data is either completely lacking or deficient. This
violates the ethical principles of research in the humanities, which state that the
privacy of the persons included in a study must be protected on publication.
Furthermore, the publication of personal data when the research topic is highly
sensitive by nature is in conflict with the European General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR). No further details on the matter are included here in order to
protect the research subjects, but a separate appendix has been provided for the
information of the editors of the Journal.
3. The article makes no distinction between academic and scientific misconduct. In
Finland, there are separate processes in place for investigating these two types of
misconduct. All the cases described in the article concern polytechnic master’s
degree theses. For each of the cases, the author has demanded that an RCR process
be initiated, which is highly uncommon, especially regarding old master’s degree
theses.
The Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK is a body of specialists appointed by the Finnish
Ministry of Education and Culture. It is a promoter of research integrity and the highest supervisory authority
on scientific misconduct in Finland.
3
APPENDIX: Further details on the unethical aspects of Moore’s article for the
editors of the Journal (not to be published)
1. The author collected the data by acting as an external whistleblower. Between 2018
and 2019, the author made 27 notifications of suspected plagiarism to a total of 15
Finnish universities of applied sciences.1 In 14 cases, being unsatisfied with the
university rector’s decision, the author extended the process by also requesting a
statement from TENK.
2. The anonymization of data is deficient. Appendix 1 of the article gives the real
initials of the authors of the theses that were the subjects of the investigations.
Furthermore, Appendix 2 provides text samples from the authors’ theses. Based on
this information, the identity of the authors of the theses used in the data could be
traced. TENK requests that the text samples in Finnish and other identifying data be
removed from the article, as it concerns a sensitive topic matter.
3. The publication of personal data when the topic matter is highly sensitive by
nature is in conflict with the European General Data Protection Regulation
(GDPR).
4. The article makes no distinction between academic and scientific
misconduct. In Finland, the investigation procedures for suspected misconduct in scientific research on
the one hand and academic studies on the other differ as follows. When misconduct is
suspected in scientific research, the so-called RCR process described in TENK’s guidelines
applies. As for academic misconduct concerning undergraduate studies, universities and
other educational institutions investigate the situations independently.
All the cases described in the article concern polytechnic master’s degree theses. For each of
the cases, the author has demanded that an RCR process be initiated. With old cases, the
rectors of the institutions in question decided not to initiate the process, which is in
accordance with TENK’s RCR guidelines. Only in exceptional cases, for example when
persons of significant social standing are involved, suspicions of misconduct regarding old
theses should undergo the RCR process. This is why the master’s thesis by a Member of
Parliament mentioned in the article was subjected to the RCR process.
Contrary to what the author claims in the article, the theses included in the data are not
research publications. The THESEUS service mentioned by the author is not a publication
database but an electronic repository of publicly available theses and papers from universities
of applied sciences.
1 Additionally, the data includes only one notification of suspected scientific misconduct that was
made by someone other than the author.
4
5. The article makes erroneous interpretations of the Finnish RCR process.
In stating that “[p]reliminary inquiry has replaced investigation proper and this allows the
procedures to remain internal and local,” the author is making an erroneous interpretation of
the Finnish RCR process. The RCR process consists of two stages: the preliminary inquiry
and the investigation proper. In the data collected by the author, it was possible to complete
the investigations within the preliminary inquiry stage. This is in no way uncommon, and
does not mean that the preliminary inquiry replaced the investigation proper. When plagiarism
is suspected in scientific practice, a conclusion can usually be reached already with the textual
comparison carried out during the preliminary inquiry. In most plagiarism cases, the
investigation proper, with its multi-member investigation committee, is therefore
unnecessary.
6. The data collection method of the research is not explained.
In addition to the aforementioned factors, TENK wants to bring up concerns about the
research data more generally. The Methodological Approach section does not describe the
data acquisition process. Therefore it is unclear from what reference group the sample was
selected and on what basis this was done. In other words, it is not clear how these 28 cases
and these particular universities of applied sciences came to be included in the study.
7. The author exaggerates the significance of her own research.
The author describes her research as unique in Finland: “The only national attempt to
clarify the extent of plagiarism is the article dealing with the accuracy of referencing in
theses in which it was found that 12% of theses published in Theseus (Moore 2014)”.
There are academic studies of plagiarism and the use of plagiarism recognition systems in
Finland, including for example these articles published by the Journal of Academic Ethics:
- Löfström, E., Huotari, E., & Kupila, P. (2017). Conceptions of Plagiarism and
Problems in Academic Writing in a Changing Landscape of External Regulation,
Journal of Academic Ethics 15(3), 277–292;
- Löfström, E. & Kupila, P. (2013). The Instructional Challenges of Student
Plagiarism. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11(3), 231–242.
The author would also have had access to a recent report on the prevalence of scientific
misconduct in Finland: Ari Salminen & Lotta Pitkänen: Tutkimusyhteisöissä kaikki hyvin?
Tutkimusetiikan barometri 2018 (“All’s well in the world of research? Research integrity
barometer 2018,” Publications of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity 1/2019)
https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/TENK_Tutkimusetiikan_barometri_2018.pdf.
The author claims that “[p]lagiarism in higher education has been a silenced topic in
Finland”. This is also a false interpretation. TENK publishes information annually on all
plagiarism cases verified by the RCR process in master’s-level theses approved by Finnish
higher education institutions. In this light, it can be stated with confidence that plagiarism is
5
not widespread in Finland, nor does TENK have any ambition to “silence” the truth on the
matter. The author also mentions the report on Finland by Irene Glendinning. This report has many
issues, such as too-extensive conclusions drawn from considerably limited data. TENK
notified the authors of the report of these issues immediately on its publication.
