Open Access Peer-reviewed Commentary

On classic and modern ethical issues in business and management academic research

Main Article Content

Wei Hong corresponding author
Hong Mei Yu


Ethical issues are critical to researchers, and this has been a hot topic in decades. Many classic ethical issues, such as plagiarism and fabrication, are repetitively discussed, but some contemporary ethical issues are still problematic and overlooked for researchers, especially those young scholars. The purpose of this paper is to analyse and discuss ethical issues around contemporary business and management academic studies. This paper found that first, scholars are internally and externally pushed to produce rigorous theory development papers, neglecting the relevance of practice. Second, researchers devoted themselves in improving their academy degree or meeting requirements from their employers instead of dealing with practical problems and their interests in research. Third, some 'self-plagiarism' behaviours, such as segmented publication, are arguable in the academy study, which leads to a waste of publication, but it is hard to discern and needs to be tackled.

ethic issues, self-plagiarism, rigour and relevance

Article Details

How to Cite
Hong, W., & Yu, H. (2021). On classic and modern ethical issues in business and management academic research. Frontiers in Management and Business, 2(1), 118-125.


  1. Martinson BC, Anderson MS and De Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 2005, 435(7043): 737-738.
  2. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, Crain AL, et al. Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2006, 1(1): 51-66.
  3. Lambert DM. Rediscovering relevance. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 2019, 30(2): 382-394.
  4. McKinnon AC. Starry-eyed: journal rankings and the future of logistics research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 2013, 43(1): 6-17.
  5. Liu SB. Embarrassment of management study, 2019.
  6. Bai CH. Research studies redirecting practice oriented. Nankai Business Review, 2020, 23(2): 2-3.
  7. Qi SH, Bai C, Chen C, et al. The Forecast: Facing the Chinese Management Practice. China Journal of Management, 2010, 7(11): 1685-1691.
  8. Jia XD and Kong ZX. Interactive innovation of Chinese Management Research and Practice: Review and Outlooks from the 10th Forum of “China Practice Management”. China Journal of Management, 2020, 17(3): 338-343.
  9. Qi SH. Rethinking the core management proposition from practice perspective. China Journal of Management, 2012, 9(1): 32-37.
  10. Tourish D. Management studies in crisis: Fraud, deception and meaningless research: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
  11. Bennis W. Leadership in a digital world: embracing transparency and adaptive capacity. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 2013, 37(2): 635-636.
  12. Latham J. Leadership for quality and innovation: Challenges, theories, and a framework for future research. Quality Management Journal, 2014, 21(1): 11-15.
  13. Torres R and Reeves M. Adaptive leadership. Leadership Excellence, 2014, 28(7): 8.
  14. Zhu JH and Fan Y. Research on the Historical Changes and Development Trend of “Human Nature Hypothesis” - Based on Critical Analysis ofWestern Management Theory. Economic Research Guide, 2010, 33: 211-212.
  15. Hu S and Kang TG. Evaluation of Western Human Nature Supposition Theory and Related Management Model. Commercial Science Research, 2008, 3: 43-45.
  16. Renqing D. The Reasonable Essence and Enlightenmen of the Theory of Human Nature Supposition about West Psychology of Management. Journal of Qinghai Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 2008, 131(6): 142-145.
  17. Lv L. Meta-Issues of Management and Management Philosophy :Discussion on Logic Defect of’The Forecast:Facing the Chinese Management Practice’. China Journal of Management, 2011, 8(4): 517-523.
  18. Narasimhan R. The fallacy of impact without relevance - reclaiming relevance and rigor. European Business Review, 2018, 30(2): 157-168.
  19. Glick W, Tsui A and Davis G. The moral dilemma of business research, 2018.
  20. Storbacka K. Does publish or perish lead to stylish rubbish? Journal of Business Market Management, 2014, 7(1): 289-295.
  21. Stentoft J. Practitioners Perspectives on Contemporary Supply Chain Management Issues: The Danish Supply Chain Panel 2012-2016. University Press of Southern Denmark, Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag, 2017.
  22. Stentoft J and Freytag PV. Guest editorial. European Business Review, 2018, 30(2): 94-100.
  23. CEEMAN. Changing the Course of Management Development: Combining Excellence with Relevance, 2018).
  24. Podolny JM. The buck stops (and starts) at business school. Harvard Business Review, 2009, 87(6): 62-67.
  25. Tourish D. The triumph of nonsense in management studies. Academy of Management Learning Education, 2020, 19(1): 99-109.
  26. McEwen M and Wills EM. Theoretical basis for nursing: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2017.
  27. Alvesson M. The triumph of emptiness: Consumption, higher education, and work organization: OUP Oxford, 2013.
  28. Lambert DM and Enz MG. We must find the courage to change. Journal of Business Logistics, 2015, 36(1): 9-17.
  29. Grey C and Sinclair A. Writing differently. Management Learning, 2006, 13(3): 443-453.
  30. Billig M. Learn to write badly: How to succeed in the social sciences. UK: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
  31. NPPA. Academic publishing specification - Definition of academic misconduct of journals, 2019.
  32. Gao LY. Misconducts in Journals ’legislated’ China Science Newspaper, 2019.
  33. MEPRC. Measures for the Handling of Acts to Falsify Dissertations, 2012.
  34. LawinfoChina. Measures for the Prevention and Punishment of Academic Misconducts in Institutions of Higher Education, 2016.
  35. Zhang N. Academic misconducts in postgraduates research. (Master), Shihezi University, Shihezi, 2014.
  36. Arumugam A and Aldhafiri FK. A researcher’s ethical dilemma: Is self-plagiarism a condemnable practice or not? Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 2016, 32(6): 427-429.
  37. Schneider L. Self-Plagiarism: helps careers, hurts noone? 2016.
  38. Zhang M. Academic Thesis Redundant Publication Behaviours Analysis and Preventive Measures. Science-Technology and Publication, 2020, 39(8): 82-86.
  39. Qiu WT. On “Self-plagiarism” Journal Of Ningbo Radio & TV University, 2018, 18(13): 2.
  40. Eaton SE and Crossman K. Self-Plagiarism Research Literature in the Social Sciences: A Scoping Review. Interchange, 2018, 49(3): 285-311.
  41. Lancet. Self-plagiarism: unintentional, harmless, or fraud? The Lancet, 2009, 374(9691): 664.
  42. Bonnell DA, Buriak JM, Hafner JH, et al. Recycling Is Not Always Good: The Dangers of Self- Plagiarism. ACS Nano, 2012, 6(1): 1-4.
  43. Schneider L. Academic self-plagiarism: misconduct or a literary art form? 2016.