Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

ch

William L. Gannon, Ph.D. Office of the Vice President for Research

wgannon@unm.edu (505) 277-3488

Authorship, Publication, Peer Review

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chToday

Authors – case study, author agreements, ethics of authorship, authorship credit

Peer review – experience, flowchart, why do it? What is the best? Case study

Data storage, retention, ownership – Data warehousing, management – Data sharing

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chThe bad….or the Good?

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chAuthors

http://www.nature.com/nnano/authors/submit/index.html http://

jama.jamanetwork.com/data/ifora-forms/jama/auinst_crit.pdf

What’s yours?

See section in:On Being a Scientist

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chAuthorship Means…

An author is the person who originates or gives existence to anything and with that comes the responsibility for what is created.

Authorship – Purposes share results of scholarly or laboratory research career advancement – a basis for promotion &

tenure contribute to knowledge and products in the field

Authorship – Different criteria for different fields

Humanities – no guidelines in MLA or CMS guides; most publications are single-author and journals provide guidelines

Mathematical and Computer Sciences – multiple author manuscripts must list authors alphabetically

5

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chAuthorship – different criteria

for different fields

Medical Sciences – defined narrowly as per The Uniform Requirements for Biomedical Sciences Journals: must contribute substantially, draft or revise article, final approval

Natural Sciences – guided by major journals (PNAS) limited to those who contribute substantially to the work; can include researcher who developed the project; one who writes the text must have participated in work on project.

Social Sciences – guide from APA designates “author” criteria much like Med Sciences requiring substantial contribution. 6

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chAuthorship – Other Categories:

Honorary Authorships: rare today, it was once common to include the head of a department or President or Dean on a paper although not having contributed to the work.

Ghost Authorships: if an individual should be listed for having made significant contributions on a team or as the sole investigator, but is not listed. Often obscures that the investigator is conducting research through a University-industry partnership that should be disclosed for potential conflict of interest issues.

Anonymous or Pseudonyms: this is an option for authors who wish to protect or shield themselves from critics or those who may threaten them for publishing controversial materials.

7

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chAuthorship responsibilitiesCo-authors are responsible for: Accuracy and integrity of the entire manuscript or

only for the part they contributed if a footnote indicates what part each contributed.

Maintaining, for future investigators, data upon which the article is based.

Authorship - in what order? Across disciplines no consistent rules or practices, Some are alphabetical or in terms of seniority, lab

director is first or last. Mostly it is based on the amount of work or

intellectual contributions Other contributors who do not qualify as Co-authors

should be recognized in the Acknowledgements.8

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chPotential Disqualifying Criteria

for Publications, Poster Sessions, Conference

Presentations, & Grants

Falsifying dataFabricating data or resultsPlagiarism

Plagiarism: the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another’s "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and representing these as being one's own original work. But the term remains problematic with nebulous boundaries.

9

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chPlagiarism as a Controversial Modern

Day standard History. Until the 18th Century, authors and artists

were encouraged to "copy the masters as closely as possible" and avoid "unnecessary invention.”

Practice. The history of creating works of literature and fine art involves having them be judged in terms of how well they deliberately and intentionally retell, imitate, revise, etc (= plagiarize) prior works. This is the heart of these cultural fields, to constantly refine the works of the past.

Attribution. But if a person is retelling prior works, that fact is part of the presentation – now we cite references following standards

10

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chPotential Disqualifying Criteria, Cont’d

Self-plagiarism - when an author reuses portions of their own published and copyrighted work in subsequent publications, without citing the previous publication.

Four Types of Disqualifying Self-plagiarism: Duplicate publication of an article in more than one

journal Splitting up a study into multiple publications of

the least possible content with parts repeated in subsequent publications = salami science

Text recycling Copyright infringement by reusing previously-

published material for which the author does not hold the copyright

11

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chJournal Instructions for Authors

Columbia University RCR Responsible Authorship and Peer Review – list of journals with instructionshttp://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_authorship/winResources.html

What are the Authorship Criteria of Journals? Student homeworkEthics? RCR? Define Author? Self-Plagiarism?

Instructions for manuscript preparation?Information about review process?Address copyright and intellectual

property?

12

NOT USUALLY PART OF RESEARCH PUBLISHING…But worth it to ASK is there compensation for book publishing?If so, how do I get a contract? Is there an advance, royalties?

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chPeer Review and Ethical Concerns

Unbiased and professional review of grant or paper or other scholarly product

Assess on criteria of originality, innovation, contribution to knowledge

Maintain confidentiality about content and methods of a paper/grant

Provide constructive, honest assessments and comments

Timeliness in the review process

13

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chPotential Problems/Limits with Peer

Review:

Bias – disagree with method or focus, competition, dislike author, topic

Financial conflict of interest with topic of the paper/grant

Lack of expertise May not find errors Gender bias Cannot prevent publication elsewhere

14

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chResponsibilities & Ethics of

Peer Review Avoid conflicts of interest

Recuse or Excuse oneself if there is a potential conflict

Maintain confidentialityOthers cannot read it without

permission of the grantee Objectivity and Fairness Evaluate merit and contribution to knowledge Proposed Solution to Problems: Blind Review

– will it work?

Two Case Studies15

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chWhat is responsible peer review

1. What types of conflict of interest might arise when someone is asked to review a paper or grant application

2: Is it ever appropriate for a peer reviewer to give a paper to a graduate student for review? If so, how should the reviewer do so?

3: Is it appropriate for a peer reviewer to use ideas from an article under review to stop unfruitful research in the reviewer’s laboratory?

4: Is it ever appropriate for a reviewer to use ideas from a paper under review, even if the reviewer’s method to achieve a result is different from that used in the paper under review? If so, how should the reviewer proceed?

5: What are some of the challenges in the current peer-review process, in which the peer reviewer is anonymous but the author is known to the reviewer?

6: What recourse is there for Dr. Morris if he suspects that his ideas were plagiarized?

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chA1: The reviewer may benefit or not suffer financially from the findings in the paper or grant application; may be too close to the author or applicant; may not like the author or applicant; may disagree with the methodology or science of the author or applicant; may be in very clear and direct competition with the author or applicant; or may have religious or philosophical views that are in conflict with the research of the author or applicant.

A2: Peer review should be a confidential process in which the reviewer considers the material in the paper or grant application to be privileged information. If a reviewer would like to ask the assistance of other parties in the review of a paper, he or she should get approval from the editor to do so

A3: According to guidelines from the Society of Neuroscience and other organizations, it is appropriate to stop such unsuccessful research. The guidelines state: "If information obtained during the review of a manuscript indicates that some of the reviewer’s own research is unlikely to be successful, it would be ethical for the reviewer to discontinue the research." It is recommended that the reviewer tell the author about his activities, though.

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chA4: If a peer reviewer feels that he or she must use the information contained in an article or grant application, the reviewer may be able to contact the author or applicant and try to establish a relationship in order to form a collaboration. Otherwise, it is misconduct to plagiarize the ideas described in a paper or grant application under review.

A5: Some say that anonymous peer reviewers can abuse their position by holding up review process to finish their own work, by appropriating information, or by giving bad reviews to disliked colleagues - detectable if the reviewer was known. One new approach to peer review makes the author anonymous to the reviewer. Another approach has both the author and reviewer aware of each other’s identity.

A6: If someone feels work has been appropriated during peer-review, there might be a way for the author to address the situation directly with the alleged offender. However, if the misappropriation seems egregious, the author could seek legal representation and/or contact the institution where the peer reviewer works. The institution will deal with alleged misconduct. Contacting the journal or the granting agency might be considered, too..

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chPeer review

The corresponding author is notified by e-mail whenthe editor decides to send a paper for review.

Authors may suggest referees; these suggestions areoften helpful, although they are not always followed.By policy, referees are not identified to the authors,

except at the request of the referee.Conceptually similar manuscripts are held to the

same editorial standards as far as possible, and sothey are often sent to the same referees. However,

each of the co-submitted manuscripts must meet thecriteria for publication without reference to the other

paper. Thus if one paper is substantially lesscomplete or convincing than the other, it may be

rejected, even if the papers reach the sameconclusion.

http://www.nature.com/nnano/pdf/nnano_gta.pdfNature Nanotechnology

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chData acquisition, management,

ownership Data are the foundation of research and science; integrity is

paramount. Designing experiments that create meaningful and unbiased

data (do not waste resources and protect human and animal subjects)

Once an appropriate research topic is determined, proper data collection, retention, and sharing are vital

If data are not recorded in a fashion that allows others to validate findings, results can be called into question. New inventions, protecting the confidentiality of human research subjects, and topics with national-security repercussions may limit sharing.

Who actually owns data collected in an academic environment in a research project funded by the federal government is another issue often subject to misunderstanding.

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chThe next case study of Jessica Banks

1: Who owns research data?

2: How could this problem of access to the research notebooks and manuals have been avoided?

3: Under what conditions should copying of data been done?

Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) –

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

ch1. Who owns research data?

In federally sponsored research, the university owns the data but allows the principal investigator (PI) on the grant to be the steward of the data. The PI takes responsibility for the collection, recording, storage, retention, and disposal of data. The people in a laboratory or on a research project are essentially working for the academic institution, which assigns the rights of the data to the PI. When data are published, the copyright is retained by the PI, who then assigns it to the publisher of the journal. Had the faculty member undertaken a research project on behalf of the university, the university would have the copyright to the data. But since faculty members generally perform research on their own, the copyright belongs to them. Data and data books collected by undergraduates, graduates, and postdoctoral fellows on a research project belong to the grantee institution, and students should not take their data—although retaining copies of data is allowed, with permission. With industry-funded research, data can belong to the sponsor.

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

ch2. How could this problem of access to the research notebooks and manuals have been avoided?

Clearly, Jessica Banks and her fellow student were unaware of the nature of the ownership of data in the laboratory. Professor Hayward and other faculty members in the department should have made it clear—to her and all other students—who owns research data. This is one of those areas in research where, as with authorship, an ounce of prevention in the form of early discussion and agreement can negate the need for a bitter and acrimonious pound of cure.

3. Under what conditions should copying of data been done?

Had Banks known who owned the data, she could have asked Professor Hayward for permission to copy the data and software and discuss the possibilities of collaborating with him when she starts her new position. Banks would no doubt like to continue work that she has started and maintain good relations with her former mentor, who would give her a recommendation for future employment. Stealing data would not be the best way to start a professional relationship.

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chdata storage and retention

The National Institutes of Health require that grant recipients keep all data 3years beyond grant final expenditure report.

The National Science Foundation has a similar requirement.

American Psychological Association expects its members to retain data for a minimum of 5 years.

Different universities require data retention for varying periods of time, usually for a minimum of 5 years.

Legally, data retained for patent protection and in case there are any misconduct allegations pending based on those data.

Researchers in practice will store data as long as they feel it is necessary.

Confidential data has to be stored in such a way that access cannot be available.

Store electronic data with archival resources.

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chData Warehousing

Principles – Strategy – have one– Centralize where your data are stored– Organize in a standard fashion– Redundancy – maintain copies– Security – keep account, passwords secure

Organization – Personal data, Library Data, Project Data (reducible logical parts in standard/file naming conventions)– e.g., In MyDocs sort Personal files, Ref files, Project files

Storage – Active workspace -> intermediate storage –> archival– e.g., laptop, portable HDD, mainframe or CD– version control – create new version with each edit.

Security – low (public docs), medium (commercially obtained, licensed), high (personal data sets, human subject data)– Home (prob secure), UNM (general secure), café (not secure)

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chData Management Ethics

Data loss/poor management – – affects you and others – loss is irresponsible

Always be aware of data rights of products you are using and funders requirements and agreements

Keep Wrong People away, but Right People should have access

Hit-by-a-bus – – what will become of your project/lab data if you leave?

Document how and where your data are stored Store access information securely where PI and team can

find it; keep informed of where stored High Security data

– Never store private or human res data on public online services

– Includes budgetary & research data– NO Google Docs, NO Dropbox, NO Basecamp, etc

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chData sharing

National Science Foundation data-sharing policy:

"The NSF expects significant findings from research and activities it supports to be promptly submitted for publication, with authorship that reflects the contributions of those involved. It expects investigators to share with others at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable time, the data, the samples, physical collections and other supporting materials created or gathered in the course of the work. It also encourages awardees to share software and inventions to make them useful and usable. Exceptions may be allowed to safeguard the rights of individuals and subjects, the validity of results or the integrity of collections."

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Rese

arch

Eth

ics &

Inte

grity

Pr

ogra

m

Office

of t

he V

ice P

resid

ent f

or

Rese

arch

Resp

onsib

le &

Eth

ical C

ondu

ct o

f Re

sear

chhttp://ogs.unm.edu/

http://ogs.unm.edu/current-students/documents/academic-honesty-plagiarism.pdf Plagiarism Module by Leah Sneider