• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
The Nuts and Bolts of Publishing
 

The Nuts and Bolts of Publishing

on

  • 1,182 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,182
Views on SlideShare
1,080
Embed Views
102

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

3 Embeds 102

http://accessibility_checker.siteimprove.com 71
http://unmgrc.unm.edu 27
http://a11y-staging.siteimprove.com 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    The Nuts and Bolts of Publishing The Nuts and Bolts of Publishing Presentation Transcript

    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Authorship, Publication, Peer Review Office of the Vice President for Research Research William L. Gannon, Ph.D. Office of the Vice President for Research wgannon@unm.edu (505) 277-3488
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Office of the Vice President for Today  Authors – case study, author agreements, ethics of authorship, authorship credit Peer review – experience, flowchart, why do it? Research  Research What is the best? Case study  Data storage, retention, ownership –  Data warehousing, management –  Data sharing
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Research Office of the Vice President for Research The bad….or the Good?
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Office of the Vice President for Authors  http://www.nature.com/nnano/authors/submit/index.html  http://jama.jamanetwork.com/data/ifora- forms/jama/auinst_crit.pdf Research Research  What’s yours?  See section in: On Being a Scientist
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Authorship Means… Office of the Vice President for An author is the person who originates or gives existence to anything and with that comes the responsibility for what is created. Authorship – Purposes share results of scholarly or laboratory research Research  Research  career advancement – a basis for promotion & tenure  contribute to knowledge and products in the field Authorship – Different criteria for different fields  Humanities – no guidelines in MLA or CMS guides; most publications are single-author and journals provide guidelines  Mathematical and Computer Sciences – multiple author manuscripts must list authors alphabetically 5
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Authorship – different criteria Office of the Vice President for for different fields  Medical Sciences – defined narrowly as per The Uniform Requirements for Biomedical Sciences Journals: must contribute substantially, draft or Research Research revise article, final approval  Natural Sciences – guided by major journals (PNAS) limited to those who contribute substantially to the work; can include researcher who developed the project; one who writes the text must have participated in work on project.  Social Sciences – guide from APA designates ―author‖ criteria much like Med Sciences requiring substantial contribution. 6
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Authorship – Other Categories: Office of the Vice President for Honorary Authorships: rare today, it was once common to include the head of a department or President or Dean on a paper although not having contributed to the work. Research Research  Ghost Authorships: if an individual should be listed for having made significant contributions on a team or as the sole investigator, but is not listed. Often obscures that the investigator is conducting research through a University-industry partnership that should be disclosed for potential conflict of interest issues.  Anonymous or Pseudonyms: this is an option for authors who wish to protect or shield themselves from critics or those who may threaten them for publishing controversial materials. 7
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Authorship responsibilities Office of the Vice President for Co-authors are responsible for:  Accuracy and integrity of the entire manuscript or only for the part they contributed if a footnote indicates what part each contributed. Research Research  Maintaining, for future investigators, data upon which the article is based. Authorship - in what order?  Across disciplines no consistent rules or practices,  Some are alphabetical or in terms of seniority, lab director is first or last.  Mostly it is based on the amount of work or intellectual contributions Other contributors who do not qualify as Co-authors should be recognized in the Acknowledgements. 8
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Potential Disqualifying Criteria Office of the Vice President for for Publications, Poster Sessions, Conference Presentations, & Grants Research Research Falsifying data Fabricating data or results Plagiarism Plagiarism: the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another’s "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and representing these as being ones own original work. But the term remains problematic with nebulous boundaries. 9
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Plagiarism as a Controversial Modern Office of the Vice President for Day standard  History. Until the 18th Century, authors and artists were encouraged to "copy the masters as closely as possible" and avoid "unnecessary invention.‖ Research Research  Practice. The history of creating works of literature and fine art involves having them be judged in terms of how well they deliberately and intentionally retell, imitate, revise, etc (= plagiarize) prior works. This is the heart of these cultural fields, to constantly refine the works of the past.  Attribution. But if a person is retelling prior works, that fact is part of the presentation – now we cite references following standards 10
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Potential Disqualifying Criteria, Cont’d Office of the Vice President for Self-plagiarism - when an author reuses portions of their own published and copyrighted work in subsequent publications, without citing the previous publication. Research Research Four Types of Disqualifying Self-plagiarism:  Duplicate publication of an article in more than one journal  Splitting up a study into multiple publications of the least possible content with parts repeated in subsequent publications = salami science  Text recycling  Copyright infringement by reusing previously- published material for which the author does not hold the copyright 11
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Journal Instructions for Authors Office of the Vice President for Columbia University RCR Responsible Authorship and Peer Review – list of journals with instructions http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_authorship/winR esources.html Research Research What are the Authorship Criteria of Journals? Student homework Ethics? RCR? Define Author? Self-Plagiarism? Instructions for manuscript preparation? Information about review process? Address copyright and intellectual property? NOT USUALLY PART OF RESEARCH PUBLISHING… But worth it to ASK is there compensation for book publishing? If so, how do I get a contract? Is there an advance, royalties? 12
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Peer Review and Office of the Vice President for Ethical Concerns  Unbiased and professional review of grant or paper or other scholarly product Research Research  Assess on criteria of originality, innovation, contribution to knowledge  Maintain confidentiality about content and methods of a paper/grant  Provide constructive, honest assessments and comments  Timeliness in the review process 13
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Potential Problems/Limits with Office of the Vice President for Peer Review:  Bias – disagree with method or focus, competition, dislike author, topic Research Research  Financial conflict of interest with topic of the paper/grant  Lack of expertise  May not find errors  Gender bias  Cannot prevent publication elsewhere 14
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Responsibilities & Ethics of Office of the Vice President for Peer Review  Avoid conflicts of interest Recuse or Excuse oneself if there is a potential conflict Maintain confidentiality Research Research  Others cannot read it without permission of the grantee  Objectivity and Fairness  Evaluate merit and contribution to knowledge  Proposed Solution to Problems: Blind Review – will it work? Two Case Studies 15
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of What is responsible peer review 1. What types of conflict of interest might arise when someone is Office of the Vice President for asked to review a paper or grant application 2: Is it ever appropriate for a peer reviewer to give a paper to a graduate student for review? If so, how should the reviewer do so? 3: Is it appropriate for a peer reviewer to use ideas from an article Research Research under review to stop unfruitful research in the reviewer’s laboratory? 4: Is it ever appropriate for a reviewer to use ideas from a paper under review, even if the reviewer’s method to achieve a result is different from that used in the paper under review? If so, how should the reviewer proceed? 5: What are some of the challenges in the current peer-review process, in which the peer reviewer is anonymous but the author is known to the reviewer? 6: What recourse is there for Dr. Morris if he suspects that his ideas were plagiarized?
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of A1: The reviewer may benefit or not suffer financially from the findings in the paper or grant application; may be too close to Office of the Vice President for the author or applicant; may not like the author or applicant; may disagree with the methodology or science of the author or applicant; may be in very clear and direct competition with the author or applicant; or may have religious or philosophical views that are in conflict with the research of the author or applicant. A2: Peer review should be a confidential process in which Research Research the reviewer considers the material in the paper or grant application to be privileged information. If a reviewer would like to ask the assistance of other parties in the review of a paper, he or she should get approval from the editor to do so A3: According to guidelines from the Society of Neuroscience and other organizations, it is appropriate to stop such unsuccessful research. The guidelines state: "If information obtained during the review of a manuscript indicates that some of the reviewer’s own research is unlikely to be successful, it would be ethical for the reviewer to discontinue the research." It is recommended that the reviewer tell the author about his activities, though.
    • A4: If a peer reviewer feels that he or she must use the informationResponsible & Ethical Conduct of contained in an article or grant application, the reviewer may be able to contact the author or applicant and try to establish a relationship in order Office of the Vice President for to form a collaboration. Otherwise, it is misconduct to plagiarize the ideas described in a paper or grant application under review. A5: Some say that anonymous peer reviewers can abuse their position by holding up review process to finish their own work, by appropriating information, or by giving bad reviews to disliked Research Research colleagues - detectable if the reviewer was known. One new approach to peer review makes the author anonymous to the reviewer. Another approach has both the author and reviewer aware of each other’s identity. A6: If someone feels work has been appropriated during peer-review, there might be a way for the author to address the situation directly with the alleged offender. However, if the misappropriation seems egregious, the author could seek legal representation and/or contact the institution where the peer reviewer works. The institution will deal with alleged misconduct. Contacting the journal or the granting agency might be considered, too..
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Peer review Office of the Vice President for The corresponding author is notified by e-mail when the editor decides to send a paper for review. Authors may suggest referees; these suggestions are often helpful, although they are not always followed. By policy, referees are not identified to the authors, except at the request of the referee. Research Research Conceptually similar manuscripts are held to the same editorial standards as far as possible, and so they are often sent to the same referees. However, each of the co-submitted manuscripts must meet the criteria for publication without reference to the other paper. Thus if one paper is substantially less complete or convincing than the other, it may be rejected, even if the papers reach the same conclusion. http://www.nature.com/nnano/pdf/nnano_gta.pdf Nature Nanotechnology
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Data acquisition, management, Office of the Vice President for ownership  Data are the foundation of research and science; integrity is paramount.  Designing experiments that create meaningful and unbiased data (do not waste resources and protect human and animal Research Research subjects)  Once an appropriate research topic is determined, proper data collection, retention, and sharing are vital  If data are not recorded in a fashion that allows others to validate findings, results can be called into question. New inventions, protecting the confidentiality of human research subjects, and topics with national-security repercussions may limit sharing.  Who actually owns data collected in an academic environment in a research project funded by the federal government is another issue often subject to misunderstanding.
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Office of the Vice President for The next case study of Jessica Banks 1: Who owns research data? 2: How could this problem of access to the research notebooks and manuals have been avoided? Research Research 3: Under what conditions should copying of data been done?  Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) –
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of 1. Who owns research data? Office of the Vice President for In federally sponsored research, the university owns the data but allows the principal investigator (PI) on the grant to be the steward of the data. The PI takes responsibility for the collection, recording, storage, retention, and disposal of data. The people in a laboratory or on a research project are essentially working for Research Research the academic institution, which assigns the rights of the data to the PI. When data are published, the copyright is retained by the PI, who then assigns it to the publisher of the journal. Had the faculty member undertaken a research project on behalf of the university, the university would have the copyright to the data. But since faculty members generally perform research on their own, the copyright belongs to them. Data and data books collected by undergraduates, graduates, and postdoctoral fellows on a research project belong to the grantee institution, and students should not take their data—although retaining copies of data is allowed, with permission. With industry-funded research, data can belong to the sponsor.
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of 2. How could this problem of access to the research notebooks and manuals have been avoided? Office of the Vice President for Clearly, Jessica Banks and her fellow student were unaware of the nature of the ownership of data in the laboratory. Professor Hayward and other faculty members in the department should have made it clear—to her and all other students—who owns research data. This is one of those areas in research where, as with authorship, an ounce of prevention in the form of early discussion Research Research and agreement can negate the need for a bitter and acrimonious pound of cure. 3. Under what conditions should copying of data been done? Had Banks known who owned the data, she could have asked Professor Hayward for permission to copy the data and software and discuss the possibilities of collaborating with him when she starts her new position. Banks would no doubt like to continue work that she has started and maintain good relations with her former mentor, who would give her a recommendation for future employment. Stealing data would not be the best way to start a professional relationship.
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of data storage and retention Office of the Vice President for  The National Institutes of Health require that grant recipients keep all data 3years beyond grant final expenditure report.  The National Science Foundation has a similar requirement.  American Psychological Association expects its Research Research members to retain data for a minimum of 5 years.  Different universities require data retention for varying periods of time, usually for a minimum of 5 years.  Legally, data retained for patent protection and in case there are any misconduct allegations pending based on those data.  Researchers in practice will store data as long as they feel it is necessary.  Confidential data has to be stored in such a way that access cannot be available.  Store electronic data with archival resources.
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Office of the Vice President for Data Warehousing  Principles – Strategy – have one – Centralize where your data are stored – Organize in a standard fashion – Redundancy – maintain copies Research Research – Security – keep account, passwords secure  Organization – Personal data, Library Data, Project Data (reducible logical parts in standard/file naming conventions) – e.g., In MyDocs sort Personal files, Ref files, Project files  Storage – Active workspace -> intermediate storage –> archival – e.g., laptop, portable HDD, mainframe or CD – version control – create new version with each edit.  Security – low (public docs), medium (commercially obtained, licensed), high (personal data sets, human subject data) – Home (prob secure), UNM (general secure), café (not secure)
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Data Management Ethics Office of the Vice President for  Data loss/poor management – – affects you and others – loss is irresponsible  Always be aware of data rights of products you are using and funders requirements and agreements  Keep Wrong People away, but Right People should have access Research Research  Hit-by-a-bus – – what will become of your project/lab data if you leave?  Document how and where your data are stored  Store access information securely where PI and team can find it; keep informed of where stored  High Security data – Never store private or human res data on public online services – Includes budgetary & research data – NO Google Docs, NO Dropbox, NO Basecamp, etc
    • Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Office of the Vice President for Data sharing National Science Foundation data-sharing policy: "The NSF expects significant findings from research and activities it supports to be promptly submitted for publication, with authorship that reflects the contributions of those involved. Research It expects investigators to share with others at no more than Research incremental cost and within a reasonable time, the data, the samples, physical collections and other supporting materials created or gathered in the course of the work. It also encourages awardees to share software and inventions to make them useful and usable. Exceptions may be allowed to safeguard the rights of individuals and subjects, the validity of results or the integrity of collections."
    • Research Ethics & Integrity Program Office of the Vice President for Research
    • http://ogs.unm.edu/Responsible & Ethical Conduct of Office of the Vice President for  http://ogs.unm.edu/current-students/documents/academic-honesty-plagiarism.pdf  Plagiarism Module by Leah Sneider Research Research