Presentation on theme: "Coverage of Authorship and Publication Practices in Scientific Societies’ Ethics Codes Miguel Roig Associate Professor of Psychology"— Presentation transcript:
Coverage of Authorship and Publication Practices in Scientific Societies’ Ethics Codes Miguel Roig Associate Professor of Psychology
The importance of “Official” guidelines Perceptions of authorship and publication practices (e.g., gift authorship, duplicate publication) seem to differ across disciplines (e.g., social vs. biomedical sciences; even within the biomedical sciences). How do “official guidelines” handle these issues?
Background Mary Scheetz (2002)* carried out a content analysis of “instructions to authors” (IA) of a sample of 41 biomedical journals. Results revealed that the majority of journals lacked adequate coverage of “key” research integrity (RI) themes. Roig & Marks (2004)** found that a comparable sample of psychology journals provided somewhat less coverage of RI themes than biomedical journals. *ORI 2002 conference **ORI 2004 conference
Background Bullock & Panicker (2003) carried out a qualitative-descriptive review of a sample of ethics codes. They reported the following underlying themes: –“Maintain integrity in conducting and reporting research, giving expert consultation, in delivering service”. Bullock & Panicker, S&EE, vol 9,
Background Bullock & Panicker (2003): –“Remain within the boundaries of trained competence; follow all applicable rules, regulations and procedures”. –“Do no harm to the discipline, to research participants, to institutions, to clients, or to society”. Bullock & Panicker, S&EE, 9,
Background Iverson, Frankel & Siang (2003) surveyed 57 scientific societies and found that 56% of their ethics codes (N = 32) included publication ethics. –48% of the sample contained statements on plagiarism. –45% contained statements on duplicate publication, but only 5 societies defined the concept in detail. –36% mentioned authorship responsibility (in the context of a misconduct charge). Iverson, Frankel, & Siang, S&EE, 9,
Method The ethics codes of 44 scientific societies listed in Bullock & Panicker’s (2003) study were downloaded and examined for their treatment of elements pertaining to authorship and publication practices within the scope of responsible research conduct.
Method Each code of ethics was reviewed for the presence of terminology and coverage related to authorship and publication topics, such as plagiarism, dual publication, publication credit, multiple authorship, and authorship with students. The total number of words devoted to authorship was recorded and an estimate of the general quality of coverage was also made.
Method Research/Service (N = 19) Am Assoc. for Marriage and Family TherapyAmerican Assoc.of Petroleum Geologists American Chemical Society American College of Forensic Examiners American Dental AssociationAmerican Dietetic Association Am Institute of Aeronautics and AstronauticsAmerican Institute of Chemists American Medical AssociationAmerican Psychological Association American Society of Civil EngineersAmerican Soc. of Mechanical Engineers American Statistical AssociationAustralian Psychological Limited British Psychological Society Canadian Psychological Association National Association of Applied AnthropologyNational Assoc. of School Psychologists Singapore Psychological Society
Method Service Delivery (N = 9) American Association of Petroleum Geologists American Institute of Professional Geologists American Registry of Radiologic Technologists American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science American Speech, Language and Hearing Association Ass. of Professional Engineering and Geoscientists of British Columbia Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers National Association for the Practice of Anthropology National Association of Social Workers
Method Research/Application (N = 16) Alberta Society of Professional BiologistsAmerican Anthropological Association American Educational Research Association American Mathematical Society American Meteorological SocietyAmerican Physical Society American Physiological SocietyAmerican Political Science Association American Oil Chemists’ SocietyAmerican Society of Agronomy American Soc. for Biochem. and Mol. Bio.American Society for Information Science Am Soc for Photogrametry and Remote SensingAmerican Sociological Association Archeological Institute of AmericaEcological Society of America
Results Twenty eight of the 44 ethics codes examined (64%) provided some coverage of authorship issues. The extent of coverage varied widely with some codes providing a mere two or three sentences which, in some cases, appeared only indirectly related to authorship.
Sample Short Authorship Statement Archeological Institute of America Professional archeologists owe consideration to their colleagues, striving at all times to be fair, never plagiarize and give credit where due.
Results Table 1. Frequency of coverage by type of organization. __________________________________________________ Coverage ____________________________________________ Yes No __________________________________________________ Variable Research/Service 14 (74%) 5 (26%) Service Delivery 3 (33%) 6 (67%) Research/Application 11 (69%) 5 (31%) __________________________________________________
Results Table 2. Average number of words in coverage. ____________________________________________________ Extent of Coverage ______________________________________________ Mean Sd Min. Max. ____________________________________________________ Variable Research/Service Service Delivery Research/Application ____________________________________________________
Results Table 3. Number of codes that mention F, F, or P. __________________________________________________ Coverage ____________________________________________ Yes No __________________________________________________ Variable Falsification 11 (25%) 33 (75%) Fabrication 9 (20%) 35 (80%) Plagiarism 15 (34%) 29 (66%) __________________________________________________
Results Table 4. Frequency of coverage of various authorship variables. __________________________________________________ Coverage Yes No __________________________________________________ Duplicate publication 8 (18%) 36 (82%) Order of Collaborators 6 (14%) 38 (86%) Contributorship ack. 15 (34%) 29 (66%) Publication credit 21 (48%) 23 (52%) Citing sources 10 (23%) 34 (73%) __________________________________________________
Results Table 4. Frequency of coverage of various authorship variables (continued). __________________________________________________ Coverage Yes No __________________________________________________ Accuracy of pub. 18 (18%) 26 (82%) Publication w students 9 (20%) 35 (80%) Copyright issues 3 (07%) 41 (93%) Conflict of interest 13 (30%) 31 (70%) General authorship 17 (39%) 27 (61%) __________________________________________________
Sample Statements American Psychological Association: Psychologists do not present portions of another's work or data as their own, even if the other work or data source is cited occasionally. Australian Psychological Limited: Members must not present substantial portions or elements of another’s work or data as their own.
Sample Statements American Political Science Association: As advisers, faculty members are not entitled to claim joint authorship with a student of a thesis or dissertation. Australian Psychological Limited: If the student does not submit a manuscript for publication in a reasonable period of time after completion of the research …, then the supervisor may publish the research and assume primary authorship and the student must be listed as an author.
Sample Statements American Society of Mechanical Engineers: ASME defines plagiarism as the use or presentation of the ideas or words of another person from an existing source without appropriate acknowledgment to that source. ASME views any similar misappropriation of intellectual property, which may include data or interpretation, as plagiarism. (What about an idea that is conveyed verbally and then misappropriated?)
Recommendations Because of the increase cross-disciplinary research and international collaborations there is a need for: –clearer and expanded guidelines related to authorship and publication practices. –harmonization of ethical guidelines. The leadership of professional associations are strongly encouraged to augment these sections with relevant guidelines.