Authorship Teaching Tools
PSU Policies
PowerPoint Presentations
Case Studies
Online Learning Tools
Articles
Background
Research is conducted in the hopes that new and useful knowledge will be gained. Research is not considered complete until the results are disseminated - to contribute to knowledge within a field and/or provide information that is useful to the public. Publication is the primary vehicle for disseminating research results. Publications also serve as the "currency" of the academic world for many disciplines, meaning the quality and quantity of publications is a criterion by which researchers are judged. The pressure created by the need to publish information first and in the best journals leads to many potential ethical decisions such as:
- What should be published?
- Are the results complete enough?
- Are the results significant enough?
- How much of the research should be published?
- Has any of the work been previously published?
- Who should be named as an author and who should be acknowledged?
- Have all authors' contributions been intellectually significant?
- Is every person named as an author who deserves to be?
- Has credit been adequately attributed those whose former works or ideas contributed to the research and/or publication?
- How should research results be explained to minimize misleading statements and/or bias?
- What to do with missing or outlying data points?
- Do graphics accurately represent the data?
- Have statistics been used in a transparent manner?
- Have any real or perceived conflicts of interest that could impact the impartiality of the research been disclosed?
The resources identified below provide insight into some of the ethical issues inherent in authorship and publication decisions. The resources may be used in teaching or mentoring discussions to help inform students or trainees of these issues. Please remember to attribute credit to the original creators when using the resources.
PSU Policies
Resources
Case Studies
- Something Looks so Familiar!
A professor discovers what looks like plagiarism in parts of a grant proposal written by a co-investigator.
- Criteria for Authorship and Attribution
A researcher tries to determine who should be named as an author on his paper based on their contributions.
- Fragmented Publication
A young faculty member tries to decide whether it would be better for her tenure review prospects to publish multiple articles based on her research vs. a more comprehensive article.
- Plagiarism Case
A postdoc is accused of plagiarizing from a prior article by one of his former co-authors.
- Reporting Preliminary Results
A researcher is caught in controversy over whether to proceed with delivering a conference presentation when she cannot replicate preliminary results.
- The Co-Authorship Controversy
A graduate student must decide how to handle faculty assumptions about authorship.
Articles
- Bennett, D.M. and D.McD. Taylor. 2003. Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine. 15: 263-270
- Odena, Oscar. 2004. Some considerations on research dissemination with particular reference to the audience and the authorship of papers. Music Education Research 6 (1): 101-110.
- Laine, C. and C.D. Mulrow. 2005. Exorcising Ghosts and Unwelcome Guests. Annals of Internal Medicine. 143 (8): 611-612.
- Demirjian, Karoun. 2006. What is the price of plagiarism? When someone steals another's words, the penalties can vary widely. The Christian Science Monitor May 11, pg. 14.
- Benos, D.J., J. Fabres, J. Farmer, J.P. Gutierrez, et al. 2005. Ethics and scientific publication. Advances in Physiology Education. 29 (2): 59.
- Reeves, D.S., R. Wise, and C.W.E. Drummond. 2004 Duplicate publication: a cautionary tale. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 53: 411-412.
- Davidoff, Frank. 2000. Who's the author? Problems with Biomedical Authorship, and Some Possible Solutions. Science Editor. 23 (4): 111-119.
- Pineda, Diego. 2003. Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials: National Research Council Publishes Report. Science Editor. 26 (6): 192-193.
- E. Wagner. 2007. Authors, Ghosts, Damned Lies, and Statisticians PLoS Medicine. 4 (1): e34.
- Gotzsche, P.C., A. Hrobjartsson, H.K. Johansen, M.T. Haahr, D.G. Altman, and A.W. Chan. 2007. Ghost Authorship in Industry-Initiated Randomised Trials. PLoS Medicine. 4 (1): e19.
|