Replicability of results is a scientific virtue. You are basically being asked to see whether the previously published results are replicable, so your research can either confirm or disconfirm the original findings. If the original work is acknowledged, and your work is presented as a followup for the purpose of confirmation or disconfirmation, there is nothing unethical involved.

In my opinion if that work is purely belong to your Superior where he possess copyright of that paper or permission from publishers then you can do it.

Replicability of results is a scientific virtue. You are basically being asked to see whether the previously published results are replicable, so your research can either confirm or disconfirm the original findings. If the original work is acknowledged, and your work is presented as a followup for the purpose of confirmation or disconfirmation, there is nothing unethical involved.

I agree with Karl Pfeifer. You can not publish as an original research and for shure you need to make some reference, but it is kind a scientific discussion about the topic.

I agree with all peoples on this forum. Your supervisor is merely giving you an example of previous works and you can use it as a template. If your using references from the works you need to indent the quote and for certain cite the author etc. I hope this is helpful.

As some other respondents have mentioned, replication is vital to some science. This can add to or subtract from confidence in the previous publication. Beyond that, consider some ways in which the scientific community should demand work like the supervisor wants you to do. First, some publications are distorted by sponsorship. Second, some are distorted by error. Third, some are entirely made up for secondary gain. Fourth, as a friend told me, he tried to do this and could not get it to work, so he called the author and asked what he was doing wrong. She admitted that she had distorted the materials and methods passage because she did not want anyone to be able to build on her work until she could take it further. Lots of resources wasted.

Marga Asta Jaya Mulya

You can redo someone else's work. If the result is different then you can publish that. Even if you get the same result, you can publish that.

In my opinion, this is allowed and this is ethical.

There is a type of research known as refining research. You can do the same thing over and over again, to refine the existing level of knowledge about a topic of research. But in that case, you have to specifically tell who was the first researcher to pursue that research and why you are pursuing the same thing again. Your justification has to be strong for the Research Committee to accept.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Anamitra.

Marga Asta Jaya Mulya ,

My interpretation of the directions given to you by your superior differs from all of the previous answers Anamitra Roy , Edmund L. Erde , Aoife Hanrahan , João Pedro Antunes de Paulo , Karl Pfeifer , and Akash Gupta .

Your superior requests that you follow the skeletal outline of his paper and he asks you to organize you research using the subheads he has utilized in his paper but you are supposed to fill-in the content with your own research findings, such that the body of your research paper is completely your own. Therefore, you are not supposed to "redo" someone else's work and you are not being asked by your superior to publish any of his work as your own. Yes, you are being requested to do your own independent research and to write-up your research in your own words. Because your superior has given to you his own original research paper and requested that you follow his structural framework, i.e., subheads, he expects you to acknowledge his paper, i.e., author(s), title, and, if published, publication details, or, if unpublished, relevant details concerning his position relative to your research work and resultant paper, in any initial drafts and in the final paper you produce totally on your own yet in accordance with your superior's written guidelines as stipulated in the model research paper. In the event that you find, in the course of your research investigation, you discover that a different order needs to be followed in your research paper, or you need to add a different subhead or to skip a subhead, you should explain in your paper, in its body or in endnotes, why you are adding to the structural framework and/or why you are skipping a subhead (state the subhead or step in procedure that you skip). In other words, you should follow the order and take into consideration all of the structural elements while, at the same time, conducting your own independent research project. In my opinion, you and your superior ought to avoid talking about your research project, including the drafts and the final polished research paper. It is my understanding that scientific research papers published independently by scientists obtain credibility and validation with respect to the common topic of scientific research by being conducted, written, and published independently, which means there should be no collaboration. If, however, your superior has in mind to combine your two efforts in a collaboratively authored research paper that shows two different aspects of the same comprehensive research project, then, you should still perform your research independently, but more consultation would then be appropriate. In my view, your superior wishes that you "follow in his footsteps," by which I mean that it may very well be the case that he would like you to either (1) corroborate; or (2) differentiate, your research findings and results, with respect to his research findings and results. He is giving you an opportunity to reinforce his structural and procedural methodology by double-checking it. I believe that he is also safeguarding his scientific paper's presentation of findings and results. For reasons of his own, he prefers to accord recognition for the envisaged published research to you.

However, you really should give him a lot of credit, especially if your findings corroborate his results. Best regards.

Best wishes.

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Dr Karl Pfeifer has already answered the question in details. A good research work should be reproducible, robustness and ruggedness are also considered and important in research.

Thank you for your concise and detailed feedback. I will take your advise into consideration.