Centre for Civic Education (CCE) has submitted to the Ethics Board of the University of Montenegro (UoM) a proposal to determine violations of academic integrity concerning the manner in which responsible officials at UoM publicly presented data on the UoM’s position in the Webometrics ranking, as well as their refusal to correct inaccurate claims despite numerous warnings. CCE considers that such conduct constitutes a violation of the principle of accountability and other standards of academic integrity that UoM is obliged to apply equally to its own leadership.
CCE bases this initiative, inter alia, on Article 8 of the Law on Academic Integrity, given that UoM publicly presented its alleged progress in the Webometrics ranking on the basis of data that did not originate from the official Webometrics platform, but from a website using its name and publishing fabricated data.
The problem did not end with the publication of inaccurate data. The further erosion of academic integrity was reflected in the refusal of responsible UoM officials to correct the inaccurate information, despite numerous warnings about the possible consequences of such conduct. The case soon went beyond the domestic public and acquired an international dimension, with UoM also being featured in expert analyses addressing the increasingly prevalent phenomenon of predatory rankings and the use of fabricated data.
The consequences of such conduct became evident with the publication of the July edition of the publicly available Webometrics ranking, from which UoM was excluded. This was preceded by a series of warnings from Webometrics’ lead researcher, Isidro Aguillo, that institutions using and promoting fabricated data would be removed from the publicly available ranking results, a matter to which CCE had also drawn attention.
However, even UoM’s exclusion from the publicly available ranking was not sufficient for its leadership to assume responsibility and correct the inaccurate claims. The disputed article, which refers to UoM’s “historic success” on the basis of fabricated data, remains available on the University’s official website.
CCE considers that such conduct violated several provisions of the UoM Code of Ethics – Article 21, which prohibits the misrepresentation of academic achievements; Article 9, which establishes the obligation to present facts objectively and accurately; and Article 12, which sets out the principle of responsible conduct and the promotion of academic excellence. CCE also points to Article 26, paragraph 1 of the Code of Ethics, given that the responsible officials failed to protect the reputation of UoM and did not act conscientiously and responsibly after being alerted that the published data were not credible.
CCE has therefore requested that the UoM Ethics Board initiate proceedings to determine whether academic integrity was violated, establish responsibility for the publication of the disputed data as well as for the refusal to correct them following repeated warnings, and, should violations be established, take appropriate measures against those responsible.
This case is also a test of UoM’s willingness to apply the standards of academic integrity that it requires from the entire academic community consistently to its own leadership. The credibility of those standards depends precisely on whether they apply equally to everyone, regardless of the position they hold.
If publicly presenting fabricated data as a “historic success”, refusing to correct inaccurate claims despite repeated warnings, and the resulting reputational damage are not sufficient grounds even to examine responsibility, then a legitimate question arises – what does constitute a violation of academic integrity when it concerns the UoM leadership?
Ivan Kašćelan, Project Assistant