Ethics of Scientific Publication

 

Ethics  of  Scientific  Publication

 

 

 

 

There are various ethical issues that one must consider when attempting to publish any research project. Although there are numerous such ethical issues discussed in the “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (APA, 1992), there are basic principles that deserve consideration. These general regulations underlie all scholarly writing, regardless of discipline, and are designed to accomplish two goals: (1) to safeguard against false reporting of scientific and scholarly knowledge; and (2) to protect >intellectual property rights=. The purpose of this paper is to introduce you to the basic ethical principles that should be a consideration in all of your scholarly writings.

 

 

Reporting of Results

The methodology and result sections of a paper must be free from errors. Since a main objective in any scientific investigation is to repeat and verify the observations, it is important that researchers do not make up data, modify their results or omit information to justify their hypotheses. If an accidental error does occur, it is the responsibility of the researcher to make such errors public as soon as possible. Primarily, the editor and the publisher must be contacted so that a correction notice can be circulated or published.

 

 

Plagiarism

One must never claim that another person=s words is their own; one must Agive credit where credit is due.@  If the exact words of another are used, the statement must be surrounded by quotation marks and the author=s name cited. When the statements of another individual are paraphrased (i.e., summarize a passage, re-order the sentence structure, or change some words), you must reference the source within the text. Furthermore, an author should not present another individual=s ideas as their own. That is, if a study is based on another study, or is a replication of an earlier investigation, the originating researcher should be given credit.

 

 

Publication Credit (Authorship)

Authorship not only refers to those individuals who wrote a scholarly or research paper, but also to those who held >primary responsibilities= for the published work. More specifically, those individuals who made substantial scientific contributions to a study should receive publication credit. The APA have identified that duties which encompass formulating the problem or hypotheses, structuring the experimental design, organizing and/or conducting the statistical analysis, interpreting the results, and writing a major portion of the paper, can all be considered within the realm of >substantial scientific contributions=.  In general, this means that most primary supervisors of a thesis should be granted authorship in any publication of a student=s thesis.   Students and faculty should discuss this when agreeing to work together.  Discussion of authorship early on in the process leads to less confusion later on.

               Individuals in a supportive function are not eligible for authorship, but may be acknowledged in a note within the paper. The role of a research supporter includes those who designed or built an apparatus, suggested or advised about the statistical analysis, collected or entered the data, modified or designed a computer program, and recruited participants or obtained animals. Secondary tasks alone do not constitute authorship, however, a combination of several supportive functions may justify authorship. Those who have been given an acknowledgement in a note, should be given the opportunity to review the entire manuscript before it is submitted for publication, and they reserve the right to withdraw their name from the paper if so desired.

               As early as possible, all researchers with primary roles in a research endeavour should decide what tasks are necessary for the project at hand, how the various responsibilities will be divided,  what duties or combinations of tasks warrants authorship credit, and determine the levels of authorship (first author, second author, and so on). The general rule states that the primary researcher=s name should appear first, and the subsequent names in descending order, from those with the most responsibilities to those with the fewest. If the authors shared equal roles in the research, this could be stated in the second paragraph of the note.

 

 

Determining Authorship by Daniel M. Landers and Lawrence Brawley

Several years ago, we saw a need to formulate a policy on authorship credit.  When we started asking others for written guidelines of this type, we were somewhat surprised to find that they were not really available.  There were definite opinions on this subject, some of which were not altogether consistent.  We assembled these opinions and eventually arrived at the Guidelines for Publication Credit which are presented below.

 

We have used these guidelines for the past six years.  Thus far, we have not found an occasion in which these guidelines have not proved useful.  Generally, at the time the study is being planned, we discuss the duties to be performed by each of the contributing authors.  An author order is agreed upon at that time provided that the duties are carried as planned.  If problems arise or the initially planned duties change, the author order is reevaluated at a later time.

 

Over the year, we have shared these guidelines with others who indicated they found them to be useful.  We wish to share the guidelines more generally with the NASPSPA membership in the hope that we can receive further feedback on its applicability in other research or professional settings.

 

 

Guidelines for Publication Credit

The following guidelines are suggested for determining the level of authorship accorded for contributions toward the completion of a scientific publication.  These guidelines are based on the degree of total scientific contribution or assistance made, and is generally limited to those who have made substantial scientific contributions toward the completion of the publication.

 

 

Principal Authorship

The principal author is considered the primary investigator responsible for the greatest proportion of the idea and design upon which the investigation is based.  The investigation would not have been conducted using the same unique idea or design without his/her leadership.

 

The principal author should also be responsible for major input into the interpretation and discussion of the results.  He/she is deemed responsible for the majority of the components of the investigation when faced with evaluation of the published work by colleagues and readers.

 

 

Co-Authorship

Recipients of co-authorship may be considered analogous to being principal authors.  Co‑authors may be those persons having contributed significantly to the idea and design of the investigation.  The investigation would not have been conducted using the same unique idea or design without their contribution.  However, credit for co-authorship should also be given in the following instances:

 

a)   completion of the literature review, experimental protocol, including analysis and discussion of the results.

b)   contributions to the design and analysis, or interpretation and discussion of the results.

c)    correcting, reanalyzing, and reinterpreting a preliminary work, including interpretation and discussion of the corrected or new results.

 

 

Second Author

The second author is analogous to a junior author.  This author is one who is credited with making a significant contribution to the paper or has completed a major portion of the work required to ready the investigation for publication.  Credit for second authorship would involve one of the following criteria:

 

a)  making major suggestions on contributions to the basic idea or design of the investigation.

b)  reviewing or searching the pertinent literature associated with the problem.

c)   acting as an experimenter and employing the complete methodology for the experiment, including coflection and compilation of the data.

d)  completing the data analysis, that is, computer application, interpretation and writing of the results.

e)   completing the discussion of the results, including comparisons to proposed hypotheses, theories, and previous research.

f)  making partial contributions (i.e., 50% of the work involved) to two (2) or more of the above.

 

The same criteria may be applied to a revised or corrected work.

 

 

Acknowledgement

Colleagues not substantially involved in the work, but who assisted in some way, are generally acknowledged in a footnote.  This person has completed some function that has helped either to initiate, maintain, or polish the product submitted for publication.  Credit for acknowledgement would be given for one of the following in (a) or (b):

 

a)  assisting in terms of reading, proofreading, suggestions, corrections, data analysis (i.e., computer assistance, data compilation).

b)  permitting use of laboratory site, laboratory equipment, technical assistance with equipment.

 

 

Duplicate Publication of Data

An author can only submit a manuscript to one APA journal at a time. The submission of a research paper is considered to be a commitment to publish the paper in the journal if it is accepted by the editor. Therefore, a paper cannot be presented to two or more journals simultaneously, nor can a revised paper be submitted to another journal if it has already been published or awaits publication. Duplicate publications is misleading as it suggests there is more research or data in a particular field than there actually is, it wastes resources such as journal space, and the time and efforts, and will lead to copyright infractions (as an author cannot assign copyright to more than one journal for the same piece of work).

 

 

Data Verification

The data of a research project must be made available upon the request of an editor. In order to test the accuracy of the report, professionals within the field may want to inspect the results and the analyses, or may wish to replicate the study. Therefore, researchers are expected to maintain their raw data for a minimum of 5 years after the publication of the paper. Issues such as confidentiality of the participants must be considered when raw data is shared among professionals.

 

Although these are considered to be basic principles shared across all disciplines, you must also consider the ethical guidelines that were set forth by the APA. These specific regulations can be found in the APA Web site at www.apastyle.org, or in the APA Manual.

 

 

Prepared by Tanja Schaefer

September 2001

 
 
 
©2012 Laurentian University | Sudbury ON P3E 2C6 | Canada | 705.675.1151 | 1.800.461.4030 | Contact Us| 46° 27′ 52″, -80° 58′ 05″ | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
Back to top