UGCNET Questions

Ethical research requires honesty in collecting, analyzing and reporting data regardless of whether results are favorable or expected. Unexpected or null findings still contribute to knowledge by challenging assumptions and guiding future inquiries, so they should be reported transparently with discussion of limitations and implications.

Option A:
This option advocates altering data, which is fabrication or falsification and a serious form of scientific misconduct that undermines trust in research.

Option B:
Suppressing unfavourable or null results contributes to publication bias and distorts the evidence base; it is unethical because it hides information that may be important for future studies or policy.

Option C:
This option is correct because it reflects scientific integrity: the researcher reports the actual findings, explores plausible reasons for the discrepancy with expectations, notes limitations and suggests how future work could build on these results.

Option D:
Rewriting the hypothesis after seeing the results without disclosure (HARKing) is misleading. It creates the false impression that the study was designed to test the observed pattern from the outset, which violates honest reporting standards.

Ethical research with human participants requires respect for their autonomy and dignity. Informed consent ensures that participants understand the purpose, procedures, risks and benefits before agreeing to take part. Their participation must be voluntary, and their privacy and well being should be safeguarded throughout. Protecting rights and welfare is therefore at the core of ethical research practice.

Option A:
Option A describes deliberate deception about all aspects, which violates informed consent and can only be justified in rare cases under strict conditions. Even then, debriefing is essential.

Option B:
Option B captures key ethical obligations, including informed consent, voluntariness and protection from harm. These principles are emphasized in most ethical guidelines and institutional review processes for research involving humans.

Option C:
Option C suggests publishing personal details without permission, which breaches confidentiality and privacy. Ethical standards require anonymizing data or obtaining explicit consent for disclosure.

Option D:
Option D refers to coercion by preventing withdrawal, which directly conflicts with the right to withdraw at any time without penalty.

Ethical research respects the autonomy and dignity of participants. Informed consent requires that individuals receive adequate information about the study and participate voluntarily. Researchers must also safeguard privacy, confidentiality and safety, minimizing any potential harm. Together, these responsibilities embody respect for persons and beneficence.

Option A:
Option A suggests systematic deception, which may be used in limited circumstances but never as a general principle. Even when minimal deception is used, participants must be debriefed and protected from harm.

Option B:
Option B is correct because it combines informed consent, voluntariness and protection of welfare, which are emphasized in major ethical codes such as the Belmont Report and institutional review guidelines.

Option C:
Option C proposes coercion, which violates the right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Compulsory participation is ethically unacceptable.

Option D:
Option D disregards confidentiality and privacy, exposing participants to potential social, legal or psychological harm.

Plagiarism detection tools compare submitted text with large databases of published work and web content to highlight matching segments. When used ethically, they help students and researchers spot unintentional copying and improve paraphrasing and citation. The goal is to ensure originality and correct acknowledgement of sources, not simply to avoid detection. The described scenario fits this constructive use.

Option A:
This option shows a student using plagiarism software to detect overlapping text and then revising the draft and adding proper citations. It treats the tool as an aid to academic honesty rather than as a way to “beat” the system, which is exactly the recommended practice.

Option B:
This option relies on copying entire articles without citation and ignoring any checking tools. It is a straightforward example of plagiarism and violates basic principles of academic integrity.

Option C:
Avoiding reading sources in order to prevent overlap undermines scholarship; good research builds on existing literature. Refusing to consult prior work prevents understanding the field and is not a valid strategy.

Option D:
Deleting references conceals intellectual debts and misleads readers about the originality of the work. It is clearly unethical and can amount to academic misconduct.

Ethical research practice requires acknowledging the intellectual contributions of others, regardless of whether material is accessed in print or online. Digital tools can help track references, check similarity and manage citations, but they do not replace the researcher’s responsibility. Quoted material must be clearly indicated and kept within reasonable limits, with the main argument reflecting original analysis. This approach respects copyright, academic norms and the integrity of the scholarly record.

Option A:
This option correctly integrates the use of ICT tools with human judgement. Plagiarism software can highlight overlaps, but researchers must decide what constitutes fair use and paraphrase appropriately. Transparent citation allows others to verify claims and trace ideas.

Option B:
Copying without acknowledgement is plagiarism, even if the source is open access or freely available. Ethical norms focus on honesty about authorship, not on the cost or accessibility of resources.

Option C:
Intentionally altering digital images or data to fit a hypothesis is scientific misconduct. ICT tools make such manipulation easier, which increases the responsibility to document methods and preserve raw data.

Option D:
Simultaneous submission violates many journals’ policies and can waste editorial resources. ICT makes it easier to submit to multiple venues, so researchers must be careful to follow ethical guidelines on exclusivity.