Honorary Authorship Practices in Environmental Science Teams: Structural and Cultural Factors and Solutions

Overinclusive authorship practices such as honorary or guest authorship have been widely reported, and they appear to be exacerbated by the rise of large interdisciplinary collaborations that make authorship decisions particularly complex. Although many studies have reported on the frequency of honorary authorship and potential solutions to it, few have probed how the underlying dynamics of large interdisciplinary teams contribute to the problem. This article reports on a qualitative study of the authorship standards and practices of six National Science Foundation-funded interdisciplinary environmental science teams. Using interviews of the lead principal investigator and an early-career member on each team, our study explores the nature of honorary authorship practices as well as some of the motivating factors that may contribute to these practices. These factors include both structural elements (policies and procedures) and cultural elements (values and norms) that cross organizational boundaries. Therefore, we provide recommendations that address the intersection of these factors and that can be applied at multiple organizational levels.     

Minimal Risk in Pediatric Research: A Philosophical Review and Reconsideration

Despite more than thirty years of debate, disagreement persists among research ethicists about the most appropriate way to interpret the U.S. regulations on pediatric research, specifically the categories of “minimal risk” and a “minor increase over minimal risk.” Focusing primarily on the definition of “minimal risk,” we argue in this article that the continued debate about the pediatric risk categories is at least partly because their conceptual status is seldom considered directly. Once this is done, it becomes clear that the most popular strategy for interpreting “minimal risk”—defining it as a specific set of risks—is indefensible and, from a pragmatic perspective, unlikely to resolve disagreement. Primarily this is because judgments about minimal risk are both normative and heavily intuitive in nature and thus cannot easily be captured by reductions to a given set of risks. We suggest instead that a more defensible approach to evaluating risk should incorporate room for reflection and deliberation. This dispositional, deliberative framework can nonetheless accommodate a number of intellectual resources for reducing reliance on sheer intuition and improving the quality of risk evaluations.     

Letter to the editor: On plurality and authorship in science

Moffatt argues that the “plurality of distinct accounts of scientific authorship” necessitates caution in attempts to identify unethical authorship practices, and urges that considerations be given to establishing a “single consensus account of authorship.” The revised International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria do capture the essential features of authorship in terms of “intellectual contribution” and “responsibility and accountability,” which would clearly demarcate academically legitimate authorship from the common misdemeanors of ghost writing and honorary authorship. However, plurality in the practice of science and credit-sharing culture at the ground would likely render universal adoption or compliance of a single consensus account of authorship untenable.     

Research Misconduct Definitions Adopted by U.S. Research Institutions

In 2000, the U.S. federal government adopted a uniform definition of research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP), which became effective in 2001. Institutions must apply this definition of misconduct to federally-funded research to receive funding. While institutions are free to adopt definitions of misconduct that go beyond the federal standard, it is not known how many do. We analyzed misconduct policies from 183 U.S. research institutions and coded them according to thirteen different types of behavior mentioned in the misconduct definition. We also obtained data on the institution’s total research funding and public vs. private status, and the year it adopted the definition. We found that more than half (59%) of the institutions in our sample had misconduct policies that went beyond the federal standard. Other than FFP, the most common behaviors included in definitions were “other serious deviations” (45.4%), “significant or material violations of regulations” (23.0%), “misuse of confidential information” (15.8%), “misconduct related to misconduct” (14.8%), “unethical authorship other than plagiarism” (14.2%), “other deception involving data manipulation” (13.1%), and “misappropriation of property/theft” (10.4%). Significantly more definitions adopted in 2001 or later went beyond the federal standard than those adopted before 2001 (73.2% vs. 26.8%), and significantly more definitions adopted by institutions in the lower quartile of total research funding went beyond the federal standard than those adopted by institutions in the upper quartiles. Public vs. private status was not significantly associated with going beyond the federal standard.     

The nature and quality of engineering research

Engineering is the application oí science to design and development of products intended for useful social purposes. Engineering research consists of a wide variety of activities ranging from study of material properties for possible future application to the testing necessary to establish design parameters or to verify the adequacy of new design concepts. Professors of engineering are generally expected to conduct research, preferably in the “engineering sciences”; (e.g. thermodynamics, metallurgy), to publish their results, and find their own sources of funding. Many private corporations maintain departments of research and development, the findings of which are often proprietary and not subject to peer review. Managers of engineering research projects attempt to assure the quality of their results by “instrumental”; or “organizational”; methods. Instrumental methods assure accuracy in data collection and processing, while organization methods maintain a work environment conducive to creativity and integrity among researchers. Organizational conditions can affect research quality adversely, by giving rise to ethical problems associated with conflicts between corporate interests and those of individuals.     

Giving Voice to Research Participants: Should IRBs Hear From Research Participant Representatives?

The current decision-making model for the review of human research contains inadequate mechanisms to ensure that the interests and perspectives of research participants are considered by Institutional Review Boards, whose decisions may profoundly affect the safety and well-being of participants. As a result, this model is far from being optimized to realize Institutional Review Boards' principal mandate and undermines the credibility of the research review process. This article proposes a procedural mechanism that would ameliorate these systemic deficiencies by allowing “research participant representatives” to give voice to participants during the research review process.     

Influences on Authorship Issues: An Evaluation of Giving Credit

A survey on authorship issues was conducted with academic chemists in Ph.D.-granting institutions in the United States. Six hundred faculty members responded. The respondents reported a wide range in their attitudes and behavior regarding giving credit in a publication. The various guidelines for authorship are independent of academic background factors such as the relationship between the senior author and the contributor-potential author. However, the survey data reveal significant context-dependency by the respondents. Many respondents would give more credit to their own student than to another professor's student for the exact same contribution to a research project. The survey data further shows that the faculty who received their Ph.D. in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s are the most likely to provide authorship, while those who received their Ph.D. in the 1990s and 2000s would most likely give either no credit or acknowledgments.     

Responsible Authorship: Why Researchers Must Forgo Honorary Authorship

Although widespread throughout the biomedical sciences, the practice of honorary authorship—the listing of authors who fail to merit inclusion as authors by authorship criteria—has received relatively little sustained attention. Is there something wrong with honorary authorship, or is it only a problem when used in conjunction with other unethical authorship practices like ghostwriting? Numerous sets of authorship guidelines discourage the practice, but its ubiquity throughout biomedicine suggests that there is a need to say more about honorary authorship. Despite its general acceptance among many scientists, honorary authorship is unethical. Even if burdensome, responsible researchers are obligated to forgo honorary authorship.     

Ethical Beliefs of Social Work Researchers

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the beliefs of social work researchers about ethical practices. Surveys were mailed to a random sample of 240 members of the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) to elicit their views about ethical practices in social work research. Responses from 160 members (67% response rate) yielded information regarding the appropriateness of dual relationships, authorship practices, informed consent procedures, and other conduct in social work research. Age, gender, educational level, years of social work research experience, and current teaching of social work research were related to respondents' ethical views about practices with students and sexual relationships with research subjects. The need for additional resources on ethics in social work research is highlighted.     

Scientific authorship,pluralism, and practice

In this article, I argue that understanding authorship requires that we grapple with the plurality of distinct accounts of scientific authorship. As a result, we should be careful in how we identify and quantify unethical practices such as ghostwriting. Judgements about who should be able to decide who is an author raise interesting questions about the autonomy of scientific practices.     

Mapping responsible conduct in the uncharted field of research-creation: A scoping review

This scoping review addresses the issues of responsible conduct of research (RCR) that can arise in the practice of research-creation (RC), an emergent, interdisciplinary, and heterogeneous field at the interface of academic research and creative activities. Little is yet known about the nature and scope of RCR issues in RC, so our study examined three questions: (1) What are the specific issues in RC in relation to RCR? (2) How does the specificity of RC influence the understanding and practice of RCR? (3) What recommendations could help address the issues highlighted in the literature? To answer these questions, we conducted a scoping review of the academic literature (n = 181 texts) dealing with RCR in RC. We found that researcher-creators faced some very different RCR challenges in comparison with their colleagues in the rest of academia. Addressing these issues is important for both the RCR and RC communities in order to ensure that the rapid development of this field occurs in line with the norms of RCR which, nonetheless, should be adapted to respect the particularities of RC and allow its contributions to the academic world.     

National Scientific Misconduct Policies in Argentina: Two Definitions of Research Misconduct

ABSTRACT

In “An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies”, Resnik et al. count Argentina in the list of countries without national research misconduct policies. In this paper, we clarify that Argentina has national policies of research misconduct and present the research misconduct definitions of two official science organisms: the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) and the Ethics Committee of the Argentine Ministry of Science (MINCyT).     

Clarifying the concept of the “Social” in risk assessments for human subjects research

International guidelines for the conduct of research with human participants, such as those put forth by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS, 2002), recommend that research review committees account for social risk and benefits to society in their review of proposed research. What do the concepts of the “social” and “society” mean in the context of the review of human participants research? Here we analyze concepts of social and society to define the terms: social harm, social risk, social benefit, and benefits to society. We argue that use of these terms invite more questions than answers and beg for difficult empirical research to determine the nature, likelihood, and magnitude of this category of risk and benefit. Until more research is done and these questions are answered, we advise reviewers to adopt an attitude of provisionalism and caution in their review of specifically “social” risks and benefits and “benefits to society.”     

More on plurality and authorship in science: A reply to Tang

Understanding the “political economy” of the research environment is at the core of getting clear on the ethical aspects of authorship. Questions about who should be an author on a scientific paper are complicated by the fact that authorship is used to determine credit inside science and by outside institutions whose interests and standards often differ dramatically. Much of the research ethics community seeks to impose an elite ethical consensus on scientific fields. I argue that this approach undermines the scientific autonomy of research communities. In contrast, we should develop bottom-up strategies that empower local communities and associations.     

The Canadian Agency for the Oversight of Research Involving Humans: A Reform Proposal

In this paper, I propose the creation of a Canadian agency for the oversight of research involving humans. I describe first a series of significant problems with Canada’s current system of oversight. I then argue for the creation of a national-level agency, covering all research involving humans, with three branches (policy and standards, education, and compliance). Of particular note, the proposed compliance branch consists of a number of independent national and regional Research Ethics Boards (i.e., REBs no longer reside within institutions). There is also an Audit Committee and a Non-compliance Committee (with supporting staff of auditors and compliance officers) to ensure compliance with the policies and standards set by the Policy and Standards Branch. Finally, I answer a series of “frequently asked questions” about the proposed agency design such as “What about ‘local context’?” and “Why not have a system of accreditation of institutional REBs instead?” In sum, radical reform is needed and, in this paper, I present a proposal for such reform.     

Credit and Authorship Practices: Educational and Environmental Influences

A survey on credit issues of academic chemists in U.S. Ph.D.-granting institutions was conducted. The respondents rated 15 criteria for authorship of scientific publications; core intellectual contributions received the highest ratings although making a single suggestion that was essential to the successful completion of the project was rated very low. Acquisition of data was also rated highly. The respondents rated eight potential influences on their own “policy” toward giving credit; doing what “seems to be the right thing” was the highest rated influence followed by graduate educational experiences; professional society or other responsible conduct of research (RCR) institutional policies were rated, by far, the lowest.