Dr. Kashinath H. Munde

Research Coordinator
Qualification: M. E. (Design Engg),
Ph.D (Engg.)

Institute Experience  :-  14 Years

Mail-ID: kashinath.munde@abmspcoerpune.org

Contact No:- 9890821782

Skip Navigation Links

Code of Ethics to check Malpractice and Plagiarism
 

The Code of Ethics of the ABMSP’s Anantrao Pawar CoE& R, Parvati, Pune articulates a common set of values upon which education researchers build their professional and scientific work. The Code is intended to provide both the principles and therules to cover professional situationsencountered by education researchers. It has as its primary goal the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom education researchers work. It also serves to educate education researchers, their students, and others who would benefit from understanding the ethical principles and standards that guide education researchers in their professional work.

The faculties are informed that the Plagiarism Checking Facility provide by the SPPU, Pune is available at APCOER Central Library.
All Research proposals, Research papers, UG/PG Project Reports, UG/PG Seminars has to checked before submitting to the department. 

Misconduct in academic research

Misconduct in academic research implies (and is not limited to) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or deception in proposing, carrying out or reporting results of research and deliberate, dangerous or negligent deviations from accepted practice in carrying out research. It includes failure to follow an agreed protocol if and when this failure results in unreasonable risk or harm to persons, the environment, and when it facilitates misconduct in research by collusion in, or concealment of, such actions by others. Misconduct also includes any plan or attempt to do any of these things. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretation or judgment in evaluating research methods or results, or misconduct unrelated to research processes. 

Misconduct includes (and is not limited to) the following

·         PLAGIARISM                                                                                

·        PIRACY

·         ABUSE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS                   

·         ABUSE OF RESEARCH RESOURCES

·         FABRICATION AND FRAUD                                                     

·         SABOTAGE

·         PROFESSORIAL MISCONDUCT                                                

·         DEFAMATION

·         DENYING ACCESS TO INFORMATION OR MATERIAL       

·         MISINTERPRETATION

·         PERSONATION

Two levels of violations of good academic practice can be distinguished.

Minor violations

Minor abuses may occur because of innocence or lack of knowledge of the principles of academic honesty and are often characterized by the absence of deceitful intent on the part of the person compelling the violation. They may result from:
A. Fragile procedures and methods which may risk the integrity of the research but are not started deliberately or recklessly; B. Weaknesses which present no major risks to either subjects or policies which they may influence. Generally, these minor abuses can be seen as shortcomings which may reflect only unfortunate, rather than intolerable practices and thusessentially require further training and development instead of any formal disciplinary action.

Major violations

Major violations are gaps of academic honesty that are more severe in nature or that disturb a more important aspect or portion of the educational work compared with minor violations. Key examples are:
A. Deliberate, reckless or grossly negligent conduct which would clearly pose a significant risk in one form or another to the integrity of the research.
B. Behavior that might pose risks to issues, the broader community, the environment, or to the research status of the institution and research in general.
C. .Major plagiarism defined as:
D. Broad paraphrasing or repeating without proper reference of the source; Lifting in a straight line from a text or other educational source without reference;
1. Presenting somebody else’s designs or concepts asyour own;
2. Sustained occurrences of what was primarily regarded as minor plagiarism in spite of warnings having been given.
The APCOER is devoted to completelyinspect serious violations of academic misbehavior by any academic member of the APCOER Community The RAC may carry out:
1. A pilot investigation to determine whether there is adequate substance to the accusation as to permit a more in-depth investigation;
2. A official inquiry which may comprise the consultation or participation of external experts when needed.

Tasks of the Research Committee

• To deliver guidance and direction to the APCOER academic community on academic research ethics.

• To direct the Academicians on compliance with the ‘Code of Ethics in Academic Research’ at the APCOER.

• To offer supervision and academic support to scholars on ethical concerns in respect of teaching, research and other educational activities on a totally voluntary basis.

• To act as an inspective/counseling body for any in doubt matter relating to research ethics and behavior.

• To make commendations to the internal QAC on what action, if any, should be taken as a result of the investigations.