Overview: Underserved Areas of Education in the Responsible Conduct of Research: Authorship

In February of 2007, the Responsible Conduct of Research Education Committee of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics convened a mini-conference at the Association’s annual meeting. The purpose of the mini-conference was to examine underserved areas of education in research ethics. The mini-conference consisted of panel discussions for two topics: authorship and social responsibility. Representatives from diverse academic disciplines were invited to participate in each of the two panels. This Special Section of Science and Engineering Ethics consists of the papers based on presentations in the authorship panel. The papers illustrate similarities and differences in authorship and publication practices in various disciplines including engineering, the life sciences, and the social sciences.     

Policies and perspectives on authorship

Authorship on publications has been described as a “meal ticket” for researchers in academic settings. Given the importance of authorship, inappropriate publication credit is a pertinent ethical issue. This paper presents an overview of authorship problems and policies intended to address them. Previous work has identified three types of inappropriate authorship practices: plagiarism, giving unwarranted credit and failure to give expected credit. Guidelines from universities, journals and professional organizations provide standards about requirements of authors and may describe inappropriate practices; to a lesser extent, they provide guidance for determining authorship order. While policies on authorship may be helpful in some circumstances, they are not panaceas. Formal guidelines may not address serious power imbalances in working relationships and may be difficult to enforce in the face of particular departmental or institutional cultures. In order to develop more effective and useful guidelines, we should gain more knowledge about how students and faculty members perceive policies as well as their understanding of how policies will best benefit collaborators.     

The authorship list in science: Junior physicists’ perceptions of who appears and why

A questionnaire probing the distribution of authorship credit was given to postdoctoral associates (“postdocs”) in order to determine their awareness of the professional society’s ethical statement on authorship, the extent of communication with their supervisors about authorship criteria, and the appropriateness of authorship assignments on submitted papers. Results indicate a low awareness of the professional society’s ethical statement and that little communication takes place between postdocs and supervisors about authorship criteria. A substantial amount of authorship credit given to supervisors and other workers is perceived by the postdocs to violate the professional society’s ethical statement.     

Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey

We surveyed 1005 postdoctoral fellows by questionnaire about ethical matters related to biomedical research and publishing; 33% responded. About 18% of respondents said they had taken a course in research ethics, and about 31% said they had had a course that devoted some time to research ethics. A substantial majority stated willingness to grant other investigators, except competitors, access to their data before publication and to share research materials. Respondents’ opinions about contributions justifying authorship of research papers were mainly consistent but at variance with those of many biomedical journal editors. More than half said they had observed what they considered unethical research practices. To increase the chances of getting a grant funded, 27% said they were willing to select or omit data to improve their results; to make publication of their work more likely or to benefit their career, 15% would select or omit data and 32% would list an undeserving author. Of respondents who thought they had been unfairly denied authorship on a paper, or been listed with or asked to list an undeserving author, 75% said they would be willing to list an undeserving author (P<0.001). Having taken a course dealing with research ethics had no effect on stated willingness to select or omit data or to fabricate data in the future, but was positively associated with willingness to grant undeserved authorship (P<0.04). Although these results do not controvert research demonstrating the effectiveness of ethics courses during professional education, they indicate that the research environment is a powerful component of a trainee’s experience and ethical development. Preliminary results of this work were presented in part as a poster at the forumEthics, Values, and the Promise of Science, presented by Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, 25–26 February 1993 in San Francisco, California, USA.     

Editorial independence at medical journals owned by professional associations: A survey of editors

The purpose of this study was to assess the degree of editorial independence at a sample of medical journals and the relationship between the journals and their owners. We surveyed the editors of 33 medical journals owned by not-for-profit organizations (“associations”), including 10 journals represented on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (nine of which are general medical journals) and a random sample of 23 specialist journals with high impact factors that are indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information. The main outcome measures were the authority to hire, fire, and oversee the work of the editor; the editor’s tenure and financial compensation; control of the journal’s budget; publication of material about the association; and the editor’s perceptions about editorial independence and pressure over editorial content. Of the 33 editors, 23 (70%) reported having complete editorial freedom, and the remainder reported a high level of freedom (a score of ≥8, where 10 equals complete editorial freedom and 1 equals no editorial freedom). Nevertheless, a substantial minority of editors reported having received at least some pressure in recent years over editorial content from the association’s leadership (42%), senior staff (30%), or rank-and-file members (39%). The association’s board of directors has the authority to hire (48%) or fire (55%) the editor for about half of the journals, and the editor reports to the board for 10 journals (30%). Twenty-three editors (70%) are appointed for a specific term (median term =5 years). Three-fifths of the journals have no control over their profit, and the majority of journals use the association’s legal counsel and/or media relations staff. Stronger safeguards are needed to give editors protection against pressure over editorial content, including written guarantees of editorial freedom and governance structures that support those guarantees. Strong safeguards are also needed because editors may have less freedom than they believe (especially if they have not yet tested their freedom in an area of controversy).     

Postnatal Depression and Infant Health Practices Among High-Risk Women

Women’s postnatal depressive symptoms have been associated with many adverse outcomes for children. The current study examined the frequency association with relative risk between postnatal depressive symptoms and mothers’ use of preventative infant health practices. The study used the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and Parental Health and Depression Questionnaire (PHDQ) to identify women’s depressive symptoms in a prospective longitudinal sample of 134 high-risk non-white mothers receiving well-baby health services. Unadjusted frequency comparisons examined the effect of women’s postnatal depressive symptoms on infant outcomes. Results found that compared to 60 women without postnatal depressive symptoms, 74 women with symptoms engaged in significantly fewer well-child health-visits, were less likely to use home safety devices or place their infants in the preferred back-to-sleep position, and did not complete immunizations. Depressed women were also more likely to lack knowledge of nurturing and sensitive parenting, use corporal punishment and inappropriate foods, and to show poor parenting practices. These findings provide additional supportive evidence that more efforts are needed to identify and assess women’s depressive symptoms to promote health and safety of young children. Methodological limitations and recommendations for future research are addressed.     

Standards of Scientific Conduct: Disciplinary Differences

Teaching of responsible conduct of research is largely predicated on the assumption that there are accepted standards of conduct that can be taught. However there is little evidence of consensus in the scientific community about such standards, at least for the practices of authorship, collaboration, and data management. To assess whether such differences in standards are based on disciplinary differences, a survey, described previously, addressing standards, practices, and perceptions about teaching and learning was distributed in November 2010 to US faculty from 50 graduate programs for the biomedical disciplines of microbiology, neuroscience, nursing, and psychology. Despite evidence of statistically significant differences across the four disciplines, actual differences were quite small. Stricter measures of effect size indicated practically significant disciplinary differences for fewer than 10 % of the questions. This suggests that the variation in individual standards of practice within each discipline is at least as great as variation due to differences among disciplines. Therefore, the need for discipline-specific training may not be as important as sometimes thought.     

Animated Bodies in Immunological Practices: Craftsmanship,Embodied Knowledge,Emotions and Attitudes Toward Animals

Taking up the body turn in sociology, this paper discusses scientific practices as embodied action from the perspective of Husserl’s phenomenological theory of the “Body”. Based on ethnographic data on a biology laboratory it will discuss the importance of the scientist’s Body for the performance of scientific activities. Successful researchers have to be skilled workers using their embodied knowledge for the process of tinkering towards the material transformation of their objects for data production. The researcher’s body then is an instrument of measuring as well as a kind of archive of knowing. Their body becomes a disciplined instrument which has its own place and function inside the laboratory. Furthermore, the appresentational apperception of Bodies (Husserl) is being discussed as a basis for the emotional and ethical concerns towards laboratory-animals. Attitudes towards animals in the laboratory setting (as well as elsewhere) are highly emotional. Nevertheless, following the literature of the sociology of the body, those emotional reactions still follow certain cultural patterns which themselves can be understood as embodied ways of knowing “right” or “wrong”. Besides as an instrument, the scientist’s body can also be understood as a resource of emotional attachment towards animals. It is an instrument for performing transformation as well as one for caring.     

Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies

While there has been significant discussion in the health sciences and ethics literatures about problems associated with publication practices (e.g., ghost- and gift-authorship, conflicts of interest), there has been relatively little practical guidance developed to help researchers determine how they should fairly allocate credit for multi-authored publications. Fair allocation of credit requires that participating authors be acknowledged for their contribution and responsibilities, but it is not obvious what contributions should warrant authorship, nor who should be responsible for the quality and content of the scientific research findings presented in a publication. In this paper, we review arguments presented in the ethics and health science literatures, and the policies or guidelines proposed by learned societies and journals, in order to explore the link between author contribution and responsibility in multi-author multidisciplinary health science publications. We then critically examine the various procedures used in the field to help researchers fairly allocate authorship.     

A Qualitative Exploration of Counselor Educators' Collaborative Authorship Perceptions and Practices

Limited research exists that examines the ethics of counselor educators' collaborative authorship practices. The study purpose was to explore the collaborative authorship decision-making perceptions and practices of counselor educators (N = 11). We identified six themes: (a) human process and communication, (b) context and nature of relationships, (c) learning experiences about authorship, (d) academic and career stage expectations, (e) collaborative authorship practices, and (f) philosophy of authorship. Implications and recommendations for research are discussed.     

Roles for scientific societies in promoting integrity in publication ethics

Scientific societies can have a powerful influence on the professional lives of scientists. Using this influence, they have a responsibility to make long-term commitments and investments in promoting integrity in publication, just as in other areas of research ethics. Concepts that can inform the thinking and activities of scientific societies with regard to publication ethics are: the “hidden curriculum” (the message of actions rather than formal statements), a fresh look at the components of acting with integrity, deviancy as a normally occurring phenomenon in human society, and the scientific community as an actual community. A society’s first step is to decide what values it will promote, within the framework of present-day standards of good conduct of science and given the society’s history and traditions. The society then must create educational programs that serve members across their careers. Scientific societies must take seriously the implications of the problem; set policies and standards for publication ethics for their members; educate about and enforce the standards; bring the issues before the members early and often; and maintain continuing dialogue with editors. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the AAAS-Office of Research Integrity (ORI) meeting in Washington DC on the theme: “The Role and Activities of Scientific Societies in Promoting Research Integrity” held on April 10–11, 2000.     

Writers Blocked: On the Wrongs of Research Co-authorship and Some Possible Strategies for Improvement

The various problems associated with co-authorship of research articles have attracted much attention in recent years. We believe that this (hopefully) growing awareness is a very welcome development. However, we will argue that the particular and increasing importance of authorship and the harmful implications of current practices of research authorship for junior researchers have not been emphasised enough. We will use the case of our own research area (bioethics) to illustrate some of the pitfalls of current publishing practices—in particular, the impact on the evaluation of one’s work in the area of employment or funding. Even where there are explicit guidelines, they are often disregarded. This disregard, which is often exemplified through the inflation of co-authorship in some research areas, may seem benign to some of us; but it is not. Attribution of co-authorship for reasons other than merit in relation to the publication misrepresents the work towards that publication, and generates unfair competition. We make a case for increasing awareness, for transparency and for more explicit guidelines and regulation of research co-authorship within and across research areas. We examine some of the most sensitive areas of concern and their implications for researchers, particularly junior ones, and we suggest several strategies for future action.     

Authorship Credit and Ethical Guidelines

This article examines the literature concerning problems in the assignment of authorship credits resulting from collaborative research within and between psychological, counseling, and medical professions. In addition to previously cited reasons for the proliferation of multiauthored articles, we argue that the determination of authorship is correlated with the ethical standards of the professional organization to which a researcher belongs. Thus, possible conflicts between collaborators can spring from two sources: (a) ambiguous language regarding authorship in an ethical code within a discipline and (b) lack of guidelines for working across disciplines, especially if individual collaborators have competing goals and expectations.     

Parenting Practices and Adolescent Internalizing and Externalizing Problems: Moderating Effects of Socially Demanding Kin Relations

Association of socially demanding kin relations, mother’s emotional support, behavioral control/monitoring, family organization and psychological control with adolescent’s internalizing and externalizing problems were assessed in 200 economically disadvantaged, African American mothers and adolescents. Demanding kin relations and mother’s psychological control were positively associated with adolescent’s internalizing problems. Demanding kin relations also moderated the association of control/monitoring, family organization, and psychological control, with internalizing. For mothers with more demanding kin relations, increased control/monitoring was associated with increased adolescent internalizing. In comparison, increased control/monitoring was associated with decreased adolescent internalizing for mothers with less demanding kin relations. Negative association of family organization with internalizing was more apparent for mothers with more compared to less demanding kin relations. Positive association of mother’s psychological control with internalizing was more apparent for mothers with more compared to less socially demanding kin relations. Demanding kin relations and mother’s psychological control were positively associated with adolescent’s externalizing problems. Mother’s emotional support and family organization were negatively associated with externalizing. Also, negative association of family organization with externalizing was more apparent for families with more compared to less demanding kin relations. The need for research on the factors associated with negative relation with kin was discussed.     

Is stimulus competition an acquisition deficit or a performance deficit?

Traditionally, blocking (X-outcome, followed by XY-outcome, resulting in attenuated conditioned responding to Y, relative to XY-outcome alone) has been explained in terms of the X-outcome association’s preventing the acquisition of the Y-outcome association. This view is challenged by models that view stimulus competition as a deficit in the expression of the acquired Y-outcome association. Here, we provide evidence that blocking is a performance deficit in which the Y-outcome association, the to-be-blocked stimulus, can affect behavioral control by the blocking stimulus (i.e., attenuate responding to X). The results are discussed in terms of acquisition and performance models of stimulus competition.     

Associations Between Individual and Family Level Characteristics and Parenting Practices in Incarcerated African American Fathers

We investigated the reported parenting practices of fifty incarcerated African American fathers. Fathers were interviewed using hypothetical vignettes adapted from the Parenting Dimensions Inventory (PDI) and received scores on two parenting practices: responsive and restrictive. Father’s individual level (education and length of time spent incarcerated) and family level (number of relationships that have borne children) characteristics were significantly associated with their parenting practices. Based on canonical correlation analysis, on function one, responsive parenting was positively associated with education level and negatively associated with both cumulative incarceration time and more numerous partner fertility. Restrictive parenting was negatively associated with education level and positively associated with both cumulative incarceration time and more numerous partner fertility. Function 2 capitalized on variance in the restrictive parenting predictor that was not utilized in function 1, and likely captured lack of opportunity to parent. On function 2, restrictive parenting was negatively associated with cumulative time spent incarcerated and more numerous partner fertility. In all, results suggest that prison-based education programs should be part of an overall response to incarcerated fathers. These results add to the growing body of research on incarcerated fathers and fragile families.     

Effectiveness of research guidelines in prevention of scientific misconduct

In response to a series of allegations of scientific misconduct in the 1980’s, a number of scientific societies, national agencies, and academic institutions, including Harvard Medical School, devised guidelines to increase awareness of optimal scientific practices and to attempt to prevent as many episodes of misconduct as possible. The chief argument for adopting guidelines is to promote good science. There is no evidence that well-crafted guidelines have had any detrimental effect on creativity since they focus on design of research studies, documentation of research findings, assignment of credit through authorship, data management and supervision of trainees, not on the origin and evolution of ideas. This paper addresses a spectrum of causes of scientific misconduct or unacceptable scientific behavior and couples these with estimates of the potential for prevention if guidelines for scientific investigation are adopted. The conclusion is that clear and understandable guidelines should help to reduce the chance that flawed research will escape from our institutions. However, they cannot be relied upon alone to prevent all instances of scientific misconduct and should be regarded rather as one means of bolstering the integrity of the entire scientific enterprise.