Developing Responsible
Authorship and Publication
Practices
Thomas C. Chiles
Research and Scholarship Integrity
Program
March 21, 2015
Responsible Authorship & Publication Ethics
Publications as the mechanism for career advancement, prestige/recognition, etc.,
thus a
major site for research misconduct, questionable research practices, manipulation,
etc.
Responsible Authorship
Criteria for authorship
What does being an author mean?
Who should be an author?
Who is the senior author, first author, corresponding author?
Authorship order
Collaborative research
Different authorship conventions between disciplines
Importance of laying out ground rules of authorship by PI
Resource sharing
Responsible Authorship & Publication Ethics
Questionable/unethical authorship practices
FFP (Fraud, Falsification, Manipulation of digital data, Plagiarism, including
self-plagiarism)
Inappropriate citations
Underciting, citation amnesia
Citing work (either one’s own or another’s to boost article’s popularity)
Ghostwriting
Honorary/gift authorship
Responsible Authorship & Publication Ethics
Publication ethics
Publications
Abstract,
Introduction,
Materials & Methods,
Results,
Discussion,
Citations/references,
Acknowledgements
Funding support,
Conflict of interest
Use of animals (IACUC) & human subjects (IRB)
Biohazards
Sharing data/novel reagents
Reproducibility/statistics
Responsible Authorship & Publication Ethics
Publication ethics
Selection of journal-how?
Perceived cracks in the system
Retraction system—how well does it work?
Subscription only journals vs. open access
Impact factor
Questionable/unethical publication practices
Inappropriately dividing data analysis/experiments into small units for increased
publications (salami publishing)
Publishing too similar articles for increased publications
Responsible Authorship & Publication Ethics
Peer review (mostly as pertains to journal publications)
Responsibilities of the reviewer, of the journal.
Maintaining confidentiality
Timeliness of the review
Fair and balanced criticisms, non-personal
Noting any conflicts of interest
Should mentors let trainees review a manuscript? If so, how should this be done?
Questionable/unethical peer review practices
Manipulating the recommending reviewers system to nominate those who will
uncritically examine your work (a colleague, friend)
Responsible Authorship & Publication Ethics
Peer review (mostly as pertains to journal publications)
Responsibilities of the reviewer, of the journal.
Maintaining confidentiality
Timeliness of the review
Fair and balanced criticisms, non-personal
Noting any conflicts of interest
Should mentors let trainees review a manuscript? If so, how should this be done?
Questionable/unethical peer review practices
Manipulating the recommending reviewers system to nominate those who will
uncritically examine your work (a colleague, friend)
Responsible Authorship & Publication Ethics
Research policies –special considerations, Industry
There is a tendency at times to be so desirous of building external relationships that
investigators can be willing to compromise their rights to publish.
We have seen cases, over and over again (and particularly when working with
industry), that researchers think this is a temporary thing and that they only need to
compromise just this one time in order to build the relationship.
The problem is that industry and other partners may and probably do have different
interests in their publication practices (e.g. protecting their proprietary interest).
So , these research collaborators and partners try to assert restrictions or downright
approval on intended publications. The most dangerous situation is when the
partners agree to acceptable terms in a sponsored agreement, but then negotiate
"side-deals" with the investigators that contradict the sponsored agreements.
This places the investigators in conflict with their university responsibilities, forces
the investigators to defy the terms of the sponsored agreement. They also place
themselves in the position of essentially being named as authors of publications that
do not then represent the true finds of their own research.
Responsible Authorship & Publication Ethics
Research policies –special considerations, Classified research
www.bc.edu/research/osp/principles.html
Classified research which requires a security clearance by any public or private agency will not be
conducted under Boston College's auspices, except perhaps in time of national emergency. Sponsored
funding may not be accepted by the University if there is a high probability or certainty that a faculty
member's work will later be covered by classification or confidentiality restrictions.
Research, the results of which cannot be made public or in any other way negatively affects a student's
ability to freely discuss his or her work, shall not be used as the basis of a thesis or dissertation.
The source of sponsorship and purpose of a sponsored activity must be of such a nature that they can be
publicly disclosed.
All research or other projects involving human subjects, animal subjects, and/or hazardous or potentially
hazardous biological, chemical, or radiological agents must be conducted in accordance with the guidelines,
policies, and procedures as may be established by the University for such work.