Ethics in Academic Writing

Transcription

1 Ethics in Academic Writing Kurt H. Albertine, Ph.D. Professor of Pediatrics, Medicine, and Neurobiology & Anatomy Editor-in-Chief, The Anatomical Record

2 University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah October 2009

3 DV PCMR Park City, Utah Winter Olympic Games - WOP TC 4000 m

4 Ethics Derived from the Greek word Ethos Translated to English as Character Scientific ethics An agreed upon set of rules and standards governing the conduct (character) of scientists

5 Ethics What are the rights and responsibilities of Authors Editors Reviewers Readers?

6 Authors Rights Publish their science Develop their story Expect fair review of their science Responsibilities Honest in research and writing Place their story in the context of the field Participate in fair review of their science

7 Editors Rights Publish science that meets journal s mission Attract the best science for the journal Be creative to grow the journal Responsibilities Fair and timely review of every submission Balance differing opinions during review Guard against poor science

8 Reviewers Rights Use their experience Express their opinion Criticize the science Responsibilities Avoid bias or conflict of interest Review in a timely period Clarify or improve science

9 Readers Rights Critically evaluate published papers Draw their own conclusions from papers Drive their research based on publications Responsibilities Correctly represent research by others Give credit for research by other scientists

10 Protect Subjects

11 Human Subjects Protection To protect human subjects (World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki) Title 45, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects, Revised November 13, 2001

12 Laboratory Animals Protection To protect experimental animals * Prevent pain and/or suffering Minimum number of animals to meet statistical requirements * US PHS Policy: Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. American Physiological Society Guidelines: Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR) Guidelines:

13 Journal Requirement Explicit statement in Methods section that the study was approved before the study started Human subjects: Institutional Review Board (IRB; or equivalent) Experimental animals: Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC; or equivalent) Biohazards, stem cells, etc.

14 Conduct

15 Scientific Misconduct - 1 Scientific Misconduct As defined by the US government: fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Scientists are NOT to misrepresent data Misrepresenting results includes Creating data (fabrication) Deleting data (falsification) Modifying data (falsification)

16 Scientific Misconduct - 2 Plagiarism is unacceptable! Authors may NOT copy someone else s writing and/or data! If presented, MUST give credit* Journals and publishers are using software to check for plagiarism *Methods section is excluded by some journals, including AR

17 Scientific Misconduct - 3 Redundant publication is unacceptable The same report may not be published in more than one language Journals and publishers are developing software to check for redundant publication

18 Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE) COPE: COPE is a charity (UK) that is concerned with the integrity of peer-reviewed publications Established in 1997 for journal editors Over 5200 members worldwide Wiley-Blackwell, Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, Palgrave Macmillan, and Wolters Kluwer registered their journals Membership is also open to other individuals, as associate members

19 Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE) COPE: Forum for editors to discuss issues relating to the integrity of the work submitted to, or published in, their journals Conflict of interest, unethical experimentation, fabrication and falsification of data, plagiarism, redundant publication, and authorship disputes, etc COPE encourages its members to seek investigation by universities, hospitals, or funding agencies into possible misconduct

20 3 Case Studies 2 led by Parker Antin, Ph.D. 1 led by Kurt H. Albertine, Ph.D. What would you do?

21 Porto Alegre 2013, Brasil; KH Albertine Muito obrigado!