Questionable authorship practices in scientific publishing are detrimental to research quality and management. The existing literature dealing with the prevalence, and perceptions, of such practices has focused on the medical sciences, and on experienced researchers. In contrast, this study investigated how younger researchers (PhD students) from across the faculties view fair authorship attribution, their experience with granting guest authorships to more powerful researchers and their reasons for doing so. Data for the study were collected in a survey of European PhD students. The final dataset included 1,336 participants from five European countries (Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and Switzerland) representing all major disciplines. Approximately three in ten reported that they had granted at least one guest authorship to “a person in power”. Half of these indicated that they had done so because they had been told to do so by the person in power. Participants from the medical, natural and technical sciences were much more likely to state that they had granted a guest authorship than those from other faculties. We identified four general views about what is sufficient for co-authorship. There were two dominant views. The first (inclusive view) considered a broad range of contributions to merit co-authorship. The second (strongly writing-oriented) emphasised that co-authors must have written a piece of the manuscript text. The inclusive view dominated in the natural, technical, and medical sciences. Participants from other faculties were more evenly distributed between the inclusive and writing oriented view. Those with an inclusive view were most likely to indicate that they have granted a guest authorship. According to the experiences of our participants, questionable authorship practices are prevalent among early-career researchers, and they appear to be reinforced through a combination of coercive power relations and dominant norms in some research cultures, particularly in the natural, technical, and medical sciences.

Plagiarism and other transgressions of the norms of academic integrity appear to be a persistent problem among upper secondary students. Numerous surveys have revealed high levels of infringement of what appear to be clearly stated rules. Less attention has been given to students’ understanding of academic integrity, and to the potential misconceptions and false beliefs that may make it difficult for them to comply with existing rules and handle complex real-life situations.In this paper we report findings from a survey of European upper secondary students’ views on issues relating to academic integrity. We relate these findings to the students’ training about academic integrity, self-reported level of questionable behavior and country of study.A total of 1654 students at 51 institutions located in 6 European countries participated in the study. The participants generally believed they had a good understanding of the rules applying to them and knew how to behave in compliance with norms of academic integrity. The results indicate, however, that often, in practice, this belief was mistaken. Many students had an inadequate understanding of core elements of academic integrity. They were uncertain about how to act, and they struggled in the handling of complex situations that require context-sensitive judgement. While some differences between countries were identified, they were modest and exhibited no clear pattern. Our results also suggest that reducing students’ level of uncertainty and, to a lesser degree, improving their level of knowledge could lead them to engage less in certain types of questionable behaviours. Surprisingly, the effect of academic training is modest and ambiguous. The study also confirms that perception of peer behaviour has the strongest association with student engagement in questionable behaviours. Thus, academic integrity at the upper secondary level cannot be explained simply in terms of individual ethics or knowledge.

Good academic practice is more than the avoidance of clear-cut cheating. It also involves navigation of the gray zones between cheating and good practice. The existing literature has left students’ understanding of gray zone practices largely unexplored. To begin filling in this gap, we present results from a questionnaire study involving N = 1639 undergraduate students from seven European countries representing all major disciplines. We show that large numbers of these students are unable to identify gray area issues and lack sensitivity to the context dependence of these. We also show that a considerable proportion of students have a poor understanding of concepts like plagiarism and falsification, not only in gray zone scenarios, but also in cases of relatively clear-cut cheating. Our results are similar across the faculties and countries of study, and even for students who have attended academic integrity training. We discuss the implications of this for academic integrity training.

Purpose: During the past decade, Danish policies and legislation have increasingly focused on accessibility, which, by virtue of adopting the UN Sustainable Development Goals, has spurred new demands for the expertise of Danish landscape architects. Surveys indicate as much as 27% of the Danish population have a physical disability. Therefore, landscape architectural firms play an important role in designing accessible, public and green spaces, which could reduce the number of people who experience disability in their everyday life arising from inaccessible designs. Despite this, peer-reviewed research has not attempted to qualitatively understand how landscape architects approach accessibility in their daily practice.Design/methodology/approach: Based on a grounded theory analysis of 15 semi-structured qualitative interviews with randomly selected landscape architectural firms, this study aims to describe how landscape architectural firms approach and perceive accessibility.Findings: The results of the study show a complex understanding of accessibility among practising landscape architects, with firms focusing on the role of Danish building regulations, the programming of accessibility and professional aesthetic dilemmas. Moreover, accessibility is perceived with some frustration as an element that takes valuable space from green areas due to clients' lack of willingness to provide resources for integrated solutions, landscape architects' own limited expertise and knowledge of integrated accessibility solutions and insufficient regulatory leeway.Originality/value: As accessibility is a major element of the tasks within contemporary landscape architecture, graduates need additional training in accessibility, which, in turn, necessitates additional research into accessible design solutions.

This paper is based on 8 months of sociological participatory fieldwork at the office of Gottlieb Paludan Architects, following the design process of a new concourse area for Ny Ellebjerg Station in Copenhagen, Denmark. The study aims to trace what presence users with physical disabilities possessed during a design process in which they were not physically present or explicitly involved. The study bases its findings on the visual material produced during the design process by the employees of Gottlieb Paludan Architects as well as the thoughts and discussions of practitioners. Drawing on actor-network theory, the study describes and analyses these human and non-human actors as they constitute and contribute to the design process. The study finds that users with physical disabilities were present within the design process through an implicit generalized presence and an explicit required presence. Generalized presence refers to those instances where the architectural qualities that were strived for in the project implicitly aligned with the needs of users with physical disabilities. Required presence refers to those instances during the design process where accessibility demands from client guidelines or building regulations played an important role.