1. Ethical Considerations for Software Engineering Faculty Leon J. Osterweil (ljo@cs.umass.edu)ljo@cs.umass.edu Laboratory for Advanced Software Engineering Research (LASER) University of Massachusetts Amherst USA

2. Membership in a Community Requires Obeying its Rules What communities are you joining? What are the penalties for not obeying its rules? What are the rules? –Ignorance is no excuse

3. Caution While the following may seem clear and straightforward, there are a lot of gray areas surrounding all of this

4. Plagiarism Putting your name on someone else’s work This is theft of intellectual property –Intellectual property is all academics have Plagiarism is grounds for summary dismissal Situation may not be clear –Rights of individuals in multiple authorship –Better safe than sorry

5. Authorship Your name on a paper asserts that you were a substantial contributor All authors should agree on this –Discuss beforehand –Discuss again at the end Same applies to order of authorship list You are responsible for all of it –If it is wrong, you are to blame (even if a coauthor made the errors) Never put someone’s name on a paper until and unless they agree

6. Duplicate Submission Having “the same” paper under review in more than one place at the same time A serious insult to the community Software Engineering journals and conferences are particularly sensitive to this

7. Reviewing Fairness in evaluation Protecting the ideas you review Confidentiality requirements Be fair, be as nice as you can, be constructive

8. Letters Fairness issues –To subject –To addressee –To community at large Confidentiality Issues

9. Fairness to students Don’t stand in the way of a student Push and support students Show respect for student ideas –Even if they aren’t great Be sure your assessments (eg. in letters) are fair –To the student –To the recipient

10. Conflict of Interest In reviewing papers, proposals, etc. Reviewer advantage must not be unfairly exploited –Money, other valuable considerations –Backscratching –Stealing of ideas, results –Giving advantage to your students Written rules (eg. NSF’s) on when COI exists –Here too there are gray areas Rules on unfair advantage are much harder

11. What about Good Research with Potential for Harm? This can be agonizing Each of us needs to make a personal decision At the very least, technical experts need to follow their work into the societal debate –Rather than preempt it –Or dominate it –Or ignore it

12. Being a good colleague Support the communities you are in –Committees –Energy –Sharing opinions Don’t place inappropriate burdens on colleagues

13. Where will the slides be? http://www.cse.unl.edu/~grother/nsefs/nsefs07.html