Research Ethics What is publishable Journals like to

Research Ethics

What is publishable…. Journals like to publish papers that are going to be widely read and useful to the readers • Papers that report “original and significant” findings that are likely to be of interest to a broad spectrum of its readers • Papers that are well organized and well written, with clear statements regarding how the findings relate to and advance the understanding/development of the subject • Papers that are concise and yet complete in their presentation of the findings

What is not acceptable… Papers that are routine extensions of previous reports and that do not appreciably advance fundamental understanding or knowledge in the area • Incremental / fragmentary reports of research results • Verbose, poorly organized, papers cluttered with unnecessary or poor quality illustrations • Violations of ethical guidelines, including plagiarism of any type or degree (of others or of oneself) and questionable research practices (QRP)

Are you making another paper • SLICING Breaking up work into large number of small papers. • TILING publishing sequence of substantially overlapping papers. • DOUBLE-PUBLISHING publishing same work twice

When to publish Getting published early and often �For career progression �For getting new grants �For getting tenure �For establishing priority/primacy in an area of research

Authorship problems • Gift Authorship ▫ Inclusion of authors who did not contribute significantly to the study – this might include a Ph. D supervisor! �Hierarchy (Expectation / favour) �Colleagues ( Increase publications) • Ghost Authorship ▫ Absence of Authors �Professional writers �Hierarchical / political / personal reasons

Supervisors • The relationship between the student and the supervisor is unequal and hierarchical. • The supervisor plays many roles as "adviser", "promoter", "boss", "teacher", "friend", "principal investigator”, etc. • This multiplicity of roles may lead to conflict • A student must feel free to make their own decisions

Authorship • The list of authors establishes accountability as well as credit. • A person should be listed as the author of a paper only if that person made a direct and substantial intellectual contribution to the design of the research, the interpretation of the data, or the drafting of the paper. • The acknowledgments section can be used to thank those who indirectly contributed to the work.

Statement of Informed Consent • Provides potential subject with information to make a sound decision about participating in a study • Provides simple but comprehensive info about the study

… • Elements of Informed Consent Document: ▫ ▫ ▫ Background and invitation to participate Explanation of procedures Potential risks and discomforts Potential benefits Rights of inquiry and withdrawal Signature of subject

… • Other components sometimes included in the informed consent document: ▫ ▫ Confidentiality and anonymity Invasion of privacy Safe and competent treatment Knowledge of results

Ethical Factors • No Pressure Never any pressuring of participants. • Safety of participants essential. • Credit Every researcher must receive precise, appropriate credit. • Communicate One should try to make results known to participants. • Ill Usage of Research One should be conscious of possible bad uses of research.

Sometimes Consent is not Possible • Fake an assault in the street to gauge reaction of bystanders – e. g. who will intervene and who will do nothing. • Element of surprise is essential. • Problem with the preceding: ▫ witnessing such an attack may be very disturbing to some. ▫ Those who do not intervene may be upset and suffer feelings of low worth. ▫ Those who do intervene may be injured. • Debriefing is mandatory.

… Special Populations and Coercion They might lack necessary competency --children --mentally retarded

… • Others May be Indirectly Forced Students Prison Inmates Employees Military Personnel The Homeless Welfare Recipients

• http: //fullerton. edu/research-compliance/irb/index. asp

Consent Form • Might take the following form I have read the Information Sheet and have had the details of the study explained to me. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I may ask further questions at any time. I understand I have the right to withdraw from the study at any time and decline to answer any particular questions. I agree to provide information to the researcher(s) on the understanding that my name will not be used without my permission. I agree/do not agree to the interview being recorded electronically. I understand that I have the right to ask for the tape to be turned off at any time during the interview I agree to participate in this study under the conditions set out in the information sheet Signature – Name - Date

Consent form for my research

Research Ethics Principles 1. Research should be designed, reviewed and undertaken in a way that ensures its integrity and quality 2. Research staff and subjects must be informed fully about the purpose, methods and intended possible uses of the research, what their participation in the research entails and what risks, if any, are involved. Some variation is allowed in very specific and exceptional research contexts 3. The confidentiality of information supplied by research subjects and the anonymity of respondents must be respected. 4. Research participants must participate in a voluntary way, free from any control. 5. Harm to research participants must be avoided. 6. The independence and impartiality of researchers must be clear, and any conflicts of interest or partiality must be explicit.

Questions to be asked before consent • About the Investigator Ø Who is the primary investigator, and who is supervising the study? • About Research Participants Ø What are general characteristics of participants (e. g. age, sex etc. )? Ø Any special characteristics of participants (e. g. children, alcoholics, mentally retarded etc. )? Ø Any other institutions/individuals cooperating/cosponsoring the study? Ø What is general state of health (mental and physical) of the participants? Ø How will subjects be selected for, or excluded from, participation in this study?

… • Procedure: ▫ What will the subjects be asked to do, or what behaviors will be observed by the researchers? ▫ Will deception be used? If yes, why is it necessary? ▫ What is nature of the deception, and when will the debriefing take place? • Material: ▫ E. g. , if electrical or mechanical equipment will be used, how has it been checked for safety?

… • Risks ▫ Any immediate risks to the subjects, including possibly causing them embarrassment, inconvenience, or discomfort? ▫ Are there any long-range risks to the subjects? ▫ If there are risks, what is the necessity for them, and how will subjects be compensated for facing such risks?

Research Misconduct Research misconduct means Fabrication, Falsification, or Plagiarism (FFP) in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. (a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. (b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. (c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. (d) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Other Types of Ethical Violations Duplicate publication/submission of research findings; failure to inform the editor of related papers that the author has under consideration or “in press” • Unrevealed conflicts of interest that could affect the interpretation of the findings • Misrepresentation of research findings - use of selective or fraudulent data to support a hypothesis or claim

Nonpublication of Data • Sometimes called “cooking data” • Data not included in results because they don’t support the desired outcome • Bad data should be recognized while it is being collected or analyzed

• Sooner or later • ……. ethical violations get exposed

How Journals Detect and Handle Problem Papers § Information received from reviewers or other editors § Withdrawal of a paper from publication § Banning authors from publication in the journal for 3 -5 years and informing the co-authors and editors of related journals of our action § For less serious cases, placing the author on a “watch list” for careful examination of their submissions prior to requesting reviews

Some Responses from the authors “There are probably only ‘x’ amount of word combinations that could lead to ‘y’ amount of statements. … I have no idea why the pieces are similar, except that I am sure I do not have a good enough memory “I was not involved in this article. I have no idea why my name is included. ” “This article was mainly done by a young fellow Dr. [ ]. I made the corrections in text and completed the article Unfortunately Dr. [ ] has died in January this year, so we can't ask him for the reasons…. . ” “I am not a native English speaker so I do have problems in expressing my ideas. . . You and other English language speakers are lucky from this point of view…. ” “To be honest with you, I was not aware of the fact that I need to take prior permission of the authors of the original article. As such I am facing many difficulties and hardships in my personal life. …” The corresponding author has been my teacher (and a very good one at that) from whom I have learned many things. My respect for him was of the utmost level until I found that he had been plagiarizing papers from all over the world…. . ”

RESEARCH ETHICS UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CENTER FOR BIOETHICS 2003