1. Integrating Ethics into Graduate Training in the Environment Sciences Series Unit 1: Research Integrity in Responsible Authorship and Conflict of Interest AUTHOR: MICHELLE STICKLER Office of Research Protections The Pennsylvania State University With input from Nancy Tuana, Ken Davis, Klaus Keller, Jim Shortle, Don Brown, and Erich Schienke

2. Research Misconduct Falsification Fabrication Plagiarism –The issue of using privileged information

3. Responsible Authorship Issues Proper Citation Adequately and accurately cite literature Avoid even the appearance of plagiarism

4. Responsible Authorship: Authorship Credit Underlying Values –Fairness in apportioning credit List all who made substantial intellectual contributions as authors Follow best practices in the discipline for determining the order of authors Acknowledge those who provided either intellectual or material resources but do not merit authorship –Clarity of communication Discuss authorship at start of project to alleviate conflicting expectations –Authorship entails both credit and responsibility

5. Responsible Authorship: Authorship Credit What constitutes sufficiently substantial contribution for authorship credit? for senior authorship credit? Are authors of multi-authored publications responsible for the entire content of the publication or only their specific contribution?

6. Responsible Authorship: Research Dissemination Underlying Values –Obligations to uphold commitments to the funding agency –Obligations to policies of employer –Responsible membership within research communities and research teams Timely dissemination (not too fast, not too slow) avoids duplication and furthers knowledge –Responsibilities to the general public

7. Responsible Authorship: Research Dissemination NSF policies on research dissemination –NSF 05-131 July 2005 (Grant Policy Manual) http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gp m Part 734 – Dissemination and Sharing of Research Results –Promptly publish significant findings –Share data, samples, software, or other materials, etc. resulting from supported research Part 744 – Grantee Obligations –Acknowledge NSF support –Include disclaimer on all publications including web pages

8. Responsible Authorship: Research Disseminations What are the ethical issues associated with getting research out too fast or too slow? At what point is it appropriate to share data or code?

9. Responsible Authorship: Good Publication Practices Underlying Values –Honesty Limit presentation to accurate, significant, well-supported, and reproducible results Avoid misleading claims Acknowledge limitations Acknowledge prior publications –Responsible membership within the research community Avoid fragmentary publication Avoid duplicate manuscript submission

10. Responsible Authorship: Good Publication Practices What counts as a “substantial finding”? What are the criteria determining which results will be included in the final publication, e.g. how much of what you did do you report? How do you describe the limitations of your study? What are the criteria necessary for determining the difference between similar and duplicate submissions?

11. Conflict of Interest A person has a conflict of interest when the person is in a position of trust which requires her to exercise judgment on behalf of others (people, institutions, etc) and also has interests or obligations of the sort that might interfere with the exercise of her judgment, and which the person is morally required to either avoid or openly acknowledge. –Online Ethics Organization: onlineethics.org/gloss/conflict.html

12. Conflict of Interest Underlying Values –Objectivity Avoid bias –Fairness In one’s own research In evaluation of other’s research (e.g., peer review) –Transparency Disclosure of outside influences and personal biases

13. Conflict of Interest Be especially wary of conflict of interest issues in cases requiring: –Peer Review –Expert Testimony

14. Conflict of Interest: Talking Points What counts as conflict of interest in peer review? Does disclosure of conflict of interests adequately address the concern about bias?