• Title/Summary/Keyword: falsification of hypotheses

Search Result 3, Processing Time 0.021 seconds

Auditor's Report and the Impact of Non-Audit Services, Audit Institutions

  • Mohammadi, Shaban;Dashtbayaz, Mahmoud Lari
    • The Journal of Economics, Marketing and Management
    • /
    • v.3 no.2
    • /
    • pp.1-8
    • /
    • 2015
  • In this paper, the effects of auditor change on audit quality in companies accepted in Tehran stock exchange placed review and we assessed the presence or absence of a significant correlation between them. to assess the quality of data auditing and tax distortions, falsification of accounting estimates, distortion of rules, distortion caused by mistakes in applying accounting policies and other distortions are used as the dependent variable Is. the sample group consisted of 56 companies as experimental group and a control group of 56 other companies a 4-year period, during the years 2011 to 2014 were studied. data needed for research discovery success ratio distortion before and after the change of auditor. To test the research hypotheses paired comparison method is used.

Students' Responses on the Supporting or Conflicting Evidences on Thier Preconception (학생 선개념을 지지하는 증거와 반증하는 증거에 대한 학생의 반응)

  • Park, Jong-Won;Kim, Ik-Gyun;Lee, Moo;Kim, Myung-Whan
    • Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
    • /
    • v.18 no.3
    • /
    • pp.283-296
    • /
    • 1998
  • This study was to identify middle school and college of education students' preconceptions about dielectric polarization and explore the students' reponses on the supporting or conflictual evidences on their preconceptions by letting them observe the demonstrations using electroscope, charged material, six conductor rods and six insulator rods. Letting students select the demonstrations to be observed by themselves, students' evidence selection types were classified as two : to select the evidences to testify their uncertain preconceptions, and to obtain the confirmation evidences about their preconceptions. And each evidence selection types, again, could be subclassified as three and two respectively. When students observed the conflictual observations, all accepted the observation itself. For supporting observational evidences, almost of all students showed the error of 'acceptance of antecedent' in the syllogism, that is, they did not required the succeeding supporting observations. Students' reponses on the conflictual observational evidences were classified as two: to reject the hard core of preconceptions, and to modify the students' auxiliary ideas related to the hard core with preserving the hard core. The first type reponses were, again, could be classified as three subtypes but, in all cases, students introduced new concept to explain the conflictual evidences. This responses indicated that Lakatosian rather than Popperian view is more acceptable to understand the students' reponses on the conflictual evidences. The second type reponses also were classified as three subtypes, and it was found that more middle school students than college education students were involved in this second type. That is, students who did not have perfect understanding of auxiliary ideas related with the hard core of preconceptions were more apt to change or modify theses auxiliary ideas rather than reject the hard core, this means that the quality of understanding of auxiliary ideas also take an important role in the change of hard core concept.

  • PDF

The Standard of Judgement on Plagiarism in Research Ethics and the Guideline of Global Journals for KODISA (KODISA 연구윤리의 표절 판단기준과 글로벌 학술지 가이드라인)

  • Hwang, Hee-Joong;Kim, Dong-Ho;Youn, Myoung-Kil;Lee, Jung-Wan;Lee, Jong-Ho
    • Journal of Distribution Science
    • /
    • v.12 no.6
    • /
    • pp.15-20
    • /
    • 2014
  • Purpose - In general, researchers try to abide by the code of research ethics, but many of them are not fully aware of plagiarism, unintentionally committing the research misconduct when they write a research paper. This research aims to introduce researchers a clear and easy guideline at a conference, which helps researchers avoid accidental plagiarism by addressing the issue. This research is expected to contribute building a climate and encouraging creative research among scholars. Research design, data, methodology & Results - Plagiarism is considered a sort of research misconduct along with fabrication and falsification. It is defined as an improper usage of another author's ideas, language, process, or results without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism has nothing to do with examining the truth or accessing value of research data, process, or results. Plagiarism is determined based on whether a research corresponds to widely-used research ethics, containing proper citations. Within academia, plagiarism goes beyond the legal boundary, encompassing any kind of intentional wrongful appropriation of a research, which was created by another researchers. In summary, the definition of plagiarism is to steal other people's creative idea, research model, hypotheses, methods, definition, variables, images, tables and graphs, and use them without reasonable attribution to their true sources. There are various types of plagiarism. Some people assort plagiarism into idea plagiarism, text plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, and idea distortion. Others view that plagiarism includes uncredited usage of another person's work without appropriate citations, self-plagiarism (using a part of a researcher's own previous research without proper citations), duplicate publication (publishing a researcher's own previous work with a different title), unethical citation (using quoted parts of another person's research without proper citations as if the parts are being cited by the current author). When an author wants to cite a part that was previously drawn from another source the author is supposed to reveal that the part is re-cited. If it is hard to state all the sources the author is allowed to mention the original source only. Today, various disciplines are developing their own measures to address these plagiarism issues, especially duplicate publications, by requiring researchers to clearly reveal true sources when they refer to any other research. Conclusions - Research misconducts including plagiarism have broad and unclear boundaries which allow ambiguous definitions and diverse interpretations. It seems difficult for researchers to have clear understandings of ways to avoid plagiarism and how to cite other's works properly. However, if guidelines are developed to detect and avoid plagiarism considering characteristics of each discipline (For example, social science and natural sciences might be able to have different standards on plagiarism.) and shared among researchers they will likely have a consensus and understanding regarding the issue. Particularly, since duplicate publications has frequently appeared more than plagiarism, academic institutions will need to provide pre-warning and screening in evaluation processes in order to reduce mistakes of researchers and to prevent duplicate publications. What is critical for researchers is to clearly reveal the true sources based on the common citation rules and to only borrow necessary amounts of others' research.