Search results

The aim of this paper is to investigate the journey of academic professors who have engaged in ghostwriting.

This study adopts qualitative exploratory methods to investigate the ghostwriters' journey into academic ghostwriting. To achieve the goal, the authors interviewed academic ghostwriters, who were working for a diploma mill company, specifically focused on PhD thesis writing in the NIS setting.

This study revealed several interesting insights from ghostwriter perspective such as the origins and motivation of ghostwriters, ghostwriters life, ghostwriters' careers and impediments faced by them.

Given the dispersed and sensitive nature of the topic, this is one of the few studies to investigate ghostwriting and offer implications.

Using the pharmaceutical sector as a microcosm of the health sector, we highlight the most prevalent structural and policy issues that make this sector susceptible to corruption and ways in which these vulnerabilities can be addressed. We conducted a literature review of publications from 2004 to 2015 that included books, peer-reviewed literature, as well as gray literature such as working papers, reports published by international organizations and donor agencies, and newspaper articles discussing this topic. We found that vulnerabilities to corruption in the pharmaceutical sector occur due to a lack of good governance, accountability, transparency, and proper oversight in each of the decision points of the pharmaceutical supply chain. What works best to limit corruption is context specific and linked to the complexity of the sector. At a global level, tackling corruption involves hard and soft international laws and the creation of international standards and guidelines for national governments and the pharmaceutical industry. At a national level, including civil society in decision-making and monitoring is also often cited as a positive mechanism against corruption. Anticorruption measures tend to be specific to the particular “site” of the pharmaceutical system and include improving institutional checks and balances like stronger and better implemented regulations and better oversight and protection for “whistle blowers,” financial incentives to refrain from engaging in corrupt behavior, and increasing the use of technology in processes to minimize human discretion. This chapter was adapted from a discussion piece published by Transparency International UK entitled Corruption in the Pharmaceutical Sector: Diagnosing the Challenges.

This paper aims to focus on plagiarism and the consequences of anti‐plagiarism services such as Turnitin.com, iThenticate, and PlagiarismDetect.com in detecting the most recent cheatings in academic and other writings.

The most important approach is plagiarism prevention and finding proper solutions for detecting more complex kinds of plagiarism through natural language processing and artificial intelligence self‐learning techniques.

The research shows that most of the anti‐plagiarism services can be cracked through different methods and artificial intelligence techniques can help to improve the performance of the detection procedure.

Accessing entire data and plagiarism algorithms is not possible completely, so comparing is just based on the outputs from detection services. They may produce different results on the same inputs.

Academic papers and web pages are increasing over time, and it is very difficult to capture and compare documents with all available data on the network in an up to date manner.

As many students and researchers use the plagiarism techniques (e.g. PDF locking, ghost‐writers, dot replacement, online translators, previous works, fake bibliography) to cheat in academic writing, this paper is intended to prevent plagiarism and find suitable solutions for detecting more complex kinds of plagiarism. This should also be of grave concern to teachers and librarians to provide up to date/standard anti‐plagiarism services. The paper proposes some new solutions to overcome these problems and to create more resilient and intelligent future systems.

Purpose/problem statement – Two highly successful complex adaptive systems are the Market and Science, each with an inherent tendency toward epistemic imperialism. Of late, science, notably medical science, seems to have become functionally subservient to market imperatives. We offer a twofold Hayekian analysis: a justification of the multiplicity view of spontaneous orders and a critique of the libertarian justification of market prioricity.

Methodology/approach – This chapter brings to light Hayekian continuities between diverse literatures – philosophical, epistemological, cognitive, and scientific.

Findings – The very precondition of knowledge is the exploitation of the epistemic virtues accorded by society's manifold of spontaneous forces, a manifold that gives context and definition to intimate, regulate, and inform action. The free-flow of information is the lifeblood of civil (liberal) society. The commoditization of medical knowledge promotes a dysfunctional free-flow of information that compromises notions of expertise and ultimately has implications for the greater good.

Research limitations/implications – While we accept that there are irresolvable tensions between these epistemic magisteria we are troubled by the overt tampering with the spontaneous order mechanism of medical science. The lessons of Hayek are not being assimilated by many who would go by the adjective Hayekian.

Originality/value of chapter – On offer is a Hayekian restatement (contra the libertarian view typically attributed to Hayek) cautioning that no one spontaneous order should dominate over another, neither should they be made conversable. Indeed, we argue that the healthy functioning of a market presupposes institutions that should not answer to market imperatives.

There is much evidence of bias in research on the effectiveness and efficacy of drugs as a result of the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. The purpose of this paper is to present the views of those involved in a major evidence-based policy initiative from Canada and examine the adequacy of existing academic conflict of interest (COI) rules.

Data came from the Alzheimer’s Drug Therapy Initiative in British Columbia, a coverage with evidence development (CED) initiative, where a form of action research collected insights from the authors’ experiences, combined with qualitative interviews with members of the research team.

The majority of researchers perceive the influence of pharmaceutical manufacturers as problematic. Even when the strictest of COI rules are followed, extending well beyond disclosure, the reach of industry is so great that existing COI rules lag far behind their expanding influence.

The authors support others who call for the funding of independent research, enforcement of existing disclosure rules, and unfettered publication rights. In addition, the authors urge the education of all research team members, including clinicians, on the evidence indicating the variety of forms through which industry influence is exerted. The authors believe that this awareness-raising can help toward minimizing that influence in the analyses that are conducted.

Consideration of pharmaceutical influence on CED research is important. There may be an untrue assumption that CED is functioning at arms-length from the drug companies.

Collaborative writing is pervasive in the contemporary corporate workplace. North American research reports that nine out of ten business professionals produce some of their documents as part of a team. As workplace writers seek to meet the business goals of their employers, and further their own careers, they require sophisticated skills in joining with other writers to collaboratively produce documents. Taking advantage of the benefits, and meeting the challenges of this demand, requires corporate and academic communities to collaborate: to address gaps in the knowledge about collaborative writing and to train and develop competent collaborative writers.

Provides an interview with Alex Singleton, author of The PR Masterclass.

Provides an interview with Alex Singleton, author of The PR Masterclass.

Discusses the current state of PR.

Offers advice on how the PR industry can develop best practice, suggesting that membership of a professional body is a must for any PR professional, and should be adopted more widely.

Draws on Singleton's experience in both journalism and PR to outline the need for PR professionals to write engaging, newsworthy copy, that takes into account the needs of the journalist as well as those of the business.

This chapter uncovers the destabilizing and transformative dimensions of a legal process commonly described as assimilation. Lawyers working on behalf of a marginalized group often argue that the group merits inclusion in dominant institutions, and they do so by casting the group as like the majority. Scholars have criticized claims of this kind for affirming the status quo and muting significant differences of the excluded group. Yet, this chapter shows how these claims may also disrupt the status quo, transform dominant institutions, and convert distinctive features of the excluded group into more widely shared legal norms. This dynamic is observed in the context of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights, and specifically through attention to three phases of LGBT advocacy: (1) claims to parental recognition of unmarried same-sex parents, (2) claims to marriage, and (3) claims regarding the consequences of marriage for same-sex parents. The analysis shows how claims that appeared assimilationist – demanding inclusion in marriage and parenthood by arguing that same-sex couples are similarly situated to their different-sex counterparts – subtly challenged and reshaped legal norms governing parenthood, including marital parenthood. While this chapter focuses on LGBT claims, it uncovers a dynamic that may exist in other settings.