COIT20249 Portfolio: Ethical Scenario Analysis and ACS Code of Ethics

This portfolio assignment provides a detailed analysis of an ethical scenario involving ghostwriting and its implications, referencing the ACS Code of Ethics. The assignment identifies the ethical misconduct and suggests steps to address the situation, emphasizing honesty and professionalism. It discusses the importance of addressing the issue with peers and, if necessary, reporting it to lecturers, aligning these actions with the principles outlined in the ACS Code of Ethics. The paper also highlights the need for whistleblowing if discussions fail to resolve the ethical concerns, ensuring proper assessment of students in the university. Desklib offers a wealth of resources, including similar solved assignments and past papers, to support students in their academic endeavors.

Running head: PORTFOLIO 3
Portfolio 3
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note:

1
PORTFOLIO 3
Steps Taken in This Situation and Its Justifications
The specific ACS Codes of Ethics have all the six attributes for the purpose of
defining as well as analyzing of the ethical value of particular action (Frederickson & Rohr,
2015). In this particular case, the specific situation helps in denoting a professional
misconduct. For this typical case, ghost writer is involved and this must be mentioned to the
lecturers and professionals of the college or university. There could be a proper justification
for undertaking this particular step within the ACS Codes of Ethics (Miller, 2017). The six
ACS codes of ethics are primacy of public interest, enhancement of the quality of life,
honesty, competence, professional development and professionalism. As per all the six
specified codes of ethics provided within the ACS codes of ethics, proper involvements of
any ghost writer for completing the assignment do not seem to be correct (ACS 2018). In this
particular case, the correct evaluation of situation is improper and hence all the students, who
are utilizing ghost writers for the perfect completion of their assignments, are eventually
getting more advantages over the students, who all are doing the assignments on their own.
A specific step, which shall be taken for protesting against an involvement of all ghost
writers to support an ethical documentation that is provided by ACS (Bruton, 2014).
Amongst all the six attributes, one of the major attributes within ACS codes of ethics for
professional conduct is the attribute of honesty. When all the ghost writers are included, each
and every assignment that is to be written is not a proper reflection of honesty.
In this particular situation where there is presence of ethical dilemma, this discussion
regarding the misconducts must be eventually discussed amongst the friends, who all are
taking active part within it (Frederickson & Rohr, 2015). If in any case, the team members
are unable to pay attention, at that specific moment, there could be an occurrence of the
misconduct that must be reported to all lecturers and professors.
The particular discussion with all the suspected students must be done before telling
their professors regarding the importance of situation (Bruton, 2014). This particular action
could be supported by the specific ACS codes of ethics. There are several attributes of these
ACS codes of ethics, which include primacy of public interest, enhancement of the quality of
life, honesty, competence, professional development and professionalism. All of these
attributes indicate the maintenance of professionalism by including the maintenance of
sustainability by any type of mutual understanding and discussion (Frederickson & Rohr,
2015). The typical discussion regarding the lack of morality within the utilization of various

2
PORTFOLIO 3
ghost writers for the purpose of writing each and every assignment with those students, who
have taken the services from all ghost writers, could eventually help them in understanding
this type of misconduct. In this type of case, when the discussion becomes a major failure,
specific requirement of whistle blowing is required to be completed (ACS 2018). In that case,
all the professors could be known regarding this type of misconduct that is occurring for the
proper assessment of all the students of college or university.

3
PORTFOLIO 3
References
ACS (2018). Retrieved from https://www.acs.org.au/content/dam/acs/acs-documents/Code-
of-Ethics.pdf
Bruton, S. V. (2014). Self-plagiarism and textual recycling: legitimate forms of research
misconduct. Accountability in research, 21(3), 176-197.
Frederickson, H. G., & Rohr, J. A. (2015). Ethics and public administration. Routledge.
Miller, B. D. (2017). An Update on International Activities at the ACS. In Stereochemistry
and Global Connectivity: The Legacy of Ernest L. Eliel Volume 1 (pp. 95-102).
American Chemical Society.