1. 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

2. 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

3. Responsible & Ethical Conduct of
Research
Office of the Vice President for
Research
The bad….or the Good?

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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
one's own original work. But the term remains
problematic with nebulous boundaries.
9

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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?

17. 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.

18. A4: If a peer reviewer feels that he or she must use the information
Responsible & 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..

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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) –

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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)

26. 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

27. 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."

28. Research Ethics & Integrity
Program
Office of the Vice President for
Research

29. 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