MUSC Biomedical Trainee Retreat on the Responsible Conduct of Research “Authorship, Peer Review, and Plagiarism” Ed Krug BioE101 876-2404 krugel@musc.edu 12/07/16

AUTHORSHIP “Authorship implies responsibility and accountability for published work.” http://www.icmje.org/#author

According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors … “Authorship credit should be based on: Substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and Final approval of the version to be published.” Authors must meet all three conditions! http://www.icmje.org/#author

According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors … “Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship.” “All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed.” “Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.” MUSC Authorship Guidelines http://academicdepartments.musc.edu/research/docs/AuthorshipGuidelines_1June2016.pdf

Additional resources at HHS ORI http://ori.hhs.gov/publicationsauthorship

PEER REVIEW “The process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field.” “The peer review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Peer reviewer fundamentals Provide a timely response Ensure Competence Avoid Bias Maintain Confidentiality Avoid unfair advantage Offer constructive criticism http://research-ethics.net/topics/peer-review/#discussion

Journals provide expectations for reviewing manuscripts http://www.cell.com/reviewers

Things you don’t want to read (and should not write) in the critique of a manuscript: “This paper is desperate. Please reject it completely and then block the author’s email ID so they can’t use the online system in future.” “It is sad to see so much enthusiasm and effort go into analyzing a dataset that is just not big enough.” “The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style.” “Reject – More holes than my grandad’s string vest!”   “The writing and data presentation are so bad that I had to leave work and go home early and then spend time to wonder what life is about.” http://www.molecularecologist.com/2010/12/funny-referee-quotes/

NIH Center for Scientific Review: Overview of NIH review process from submission to funding decision http://public.csr.nih.gov/aboutcsr/contactcsr/pages/contactorvisitcsrpages/nih-grant-review-process-youtube-videos.aspx

NIH offers guidance to both applicants and reviewers http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/peer.htm

NIH Center for Scientific Review http://public.csr.nih.gov/ApplicantResources/Pages/default.aspx

NIH research grant scoring criteria

NIH fellowship and K application scoring criteria http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/guidelines_general/scoring_guidance_training.pdf

Common grant application criticisms Little explanation of the importance of the experiments Hypotheses supported only by circumstantial evidence Figures are poor in quality What constitutes normal controls is not mentioned The conclusion drawn from the preliminary data does not support the hypothesis The experiments are directed largely by techniques, without critical analysis of advantages and pitfalls of each technique The Experimental Design does not provide information about actual design of the experiments The application is difficult to read The revised proposal has not addressed prior criticisms http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAOGtr0pM6Q

The process of peer review is evolving Nature’s peer review debate http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/ Predatory journals https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/ Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com “Should Peer Review Catch Fraud?” http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2016/11/27/peer-reviewers-catch-fraud/#.WEggQTvL2Q2 Post-publication peer review https://pubpeer.com NIH CSR Peer Review Challenge https://public.csr.nih.gov/Pages/Challenge.aspx

Plagiarism “Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.” http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/ftrust.html

Guidelines for Avoiding Plagiarism “In your own words!” Compare with content and intent of the authors. Give credit to the words and ideas of others - regardless of whether it is verbatim, paraphrased or summarized. Use quotation marks when it is absolutely necessary to state verbatim what an author has written. Cite the complete reference - authors, title, journal/book, page numbers and year. “Common knowledge” is audience dependent. If in doubt of a copyright issue contact the owner. A Guide to Ethical Writing http://ori.hhs.gov/avoiding-plagiarism-self-plagiarism-and-other-questionable-writing-practices-guide-ethical-writing http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism

Questionable Writing Practices Only reading the abstract of a paper. Citing work that you don’t understand. Relying solely on reviews. Not giving credit to co-workers for their intellectual input. Using only the literature that supports your view. “Honorary” authorship. “Self-plagiarism” could result in copyright infringement.

US HHS ORI Policy on Plagiarism “Many allegations of plagiarism involve disputes among former collaborators who participated jointly in the development or conduct of a research project, but who subsequently went their separate ways and made independent use of the jointly developed concepts, methods, descriptive language, or other product of the joint effort. The ownership of the intellectual property in many such situations is seldom clear, and the collaborative history among the scientists often supports a presumption of implied consent to use the products of the collaboration by any of the former collaborators. For this reason, ORI considers many such disputes to be authorship or credit disputes rather than plagiarism. Such disputes are referred to PHS agencies and extramural institutions for resolution.”

http://oric. research. wvu http://oric.research.wvu.edu/services/responsible-conduct/education-training/case-study-videos