scieditorScience Editor and PublisherНаучный редактор и издатель2542-02672541-8122АНРИ10.24069/2542-0267-2017-1-1-16scieditor-29Research ArticleEssayЭссеEssay on Academic EthicsЭссе об этике наукиКочетковД. М.KochetkovD. M.

Екатеринбург, Россия

Уральский федеральный университет Совет по этике АНРИРоссияUral Federal University ASEP Board for EthicsRussian Federation201713042017214144Copyright © Kochetkov D.M., 20172017Кочетков Д.М.Kochetkov D.M.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/29

The essay considers historical development and current state of academic ethics. It is focused on the problems of Russian science. The authors treated ethics in its interrelation with the quality issues and scientometrics indicators. The authors also discussed the problems connected with the wide expansion of the Open Access movement. The ethical dilemma is treated as a contraposition of the categories «science» and «anti-science». This paper is initially meant to be an essay, the authors plan a profound scientific research on this subject further.

Эссе рассматривает истоки и текущее состояние научной этики. Акцент сделан на проблемах российской науки. Автор рассматривает этику научной деятельности во взаимосвязи с проблемами качества генерируемого научного знания и наукометрических показателей. Затронуты проблемы, связанные с широким распространением движения открытого доступа (open access movement). Этическая дилемма представлена в виде категориального противопоставления науки и антинауки. Данный текст изначально задумывался как эссе, в дальнейшем планируется углубленное научное исследование по данной тематике.

научная этикаакадемическая этиканаукафабрикацияфальсификацияплагиатсамоплагиатacademic ethicssciencefabricationfalsificationplagiarismauto-plagiarism (self-plagiarism)academic misconductacademic fraudReferencesПлатон. Теэтет. In: Собрание сочинений в 4-х томах Т. 2. Москва: Мысль; 1993. [Plato. The Theaetetus. In: Collection of Writings in 4 Volumes. Vol. 2. Moscow: Mysl, 1993 (in Russ.)]Платон. Теэтет. In: Собрание сочинений в 4-х томах Т. 2. Москва: Мысль; 1993. [Plato. The Theaetetus. In: Collection of Writings in 4 Volumes. Vol. 2. Moscow: Mysl, 1993 (in Russ.)]Кант И. Основы метафизики нравственности. In: Сочинения в 6-ти томах Т. 4.Кант И. Основы метафизики нравственности. In: Сочинения в 6-ти томах Т. 4.Москва: Мысль; 1965. [Kant I. Groundwork of the Methaphysic of Morals. In: The Collection of Writings in 6 Volumes. Vol. 4. (in Russ.)]Москва: Мысль; 1965. [Kant I. Groundwork of the Methaphysic of Morals. In: The Collection of Writings in 6 Volumes. Vol. 4. (in Russ.)]Bentham J. Deontology or the Science of Morality: In Two Volumes. Adegi Graphics LLC; 1999. 691 p.Bentham J. Deontology or the Science of Morality: In Two Volumes. Adegi Graphics LLC; 1999. 691 p.Mill J. S. Utilitarianism. Oxford University Press; 1998. 157 p.Mill J. S. Utilitarianism. Oxford University Press; 1998. 157 p.Stigler G. The Development of Utility Theory. I. Journal of Political Economy. 1950;58(4):307–327.Stigler G. The Development of Utility Theory. I. Journal of Political Economy. 1950;58(4):307–327.Pareto V. Course of Political Economy. In: Sociological Writings. London: Pall Mall Press; 1966.Pareto V. Course of Political Economy. In: Sociological Writings. London: Pall Mall Press; 1966.North D.C. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990.North D.C. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990.Beall J. The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society. 2013;11(2):589–97. Available from: http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525Beall J. The Open-Access Movement is Not Really about Open Access. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society. 2013;11(2):589–97. Available from: http://triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/525Bohannon J. Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? Science Magazine. 2013;342(October):60–5.Bohannon J. Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? Science Magazine. 2013;342(October):60–5.Finch J., Bell S., Bellingan L., Campbell R., Donnelly P., Gardner R. et al. Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence: How to Expand Access to Research Publications. 2013;75. Available from: www.researchinfonet. org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Final-version.pdfFinch J., Bell S., Bellingan L., Campbell R., Donnelly P., Gardner R. et al. Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence: How to Expand Access to Research Publications. 2013;75. Available from: www.researchinfonet. org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Final-version.pdfPopper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson; 1959.Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson; 1959.Zietman A.L. Falsification, Fabrication, and Plagiarism: The Unholy Trinity of Scientific Writing. International Journal of Radiation Oncology. 2013;87(2):225–227. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.07.004.Zietman A.L. Falsification, Fabrication, and Plagiarism: The Unholy Trinity of Scientific Writing. International Journal of Radiation Oncology. 2013;87(2):225–227. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.07.004.Bhattacharjee Y. The Mind of a Con Man. The New York Times. 2013 Apr 26.Bhattacharjee Y. The Mind of a Con Man. The New York Times. 2013 Apr 26.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.