Developing Responsible Authorship and Publication Practices Thomas C. Chiles Research and Scholarship Integrity Program March 21, 2015

Responsible Authorship & Publication Ethics Publications as the mechanism for career advancement, prestige/recognition, etc., thus a major site for research misconduct, questionable research practices, manipulation, etc. Responsible Authorship Criteria for authorship What does being an author mean? Who should be an author? Who is the senior author, first author, corresponding author? Authorship order Collaborative research Different authorship conventions between disciplines Importance of laying out ground rules of authorship by PI Resource sharing

Responsible Authorship & Publication Ethics Questionable/unethical authorship practices FFP (Fraud, Falsification, Manipulation of digital data, Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism) Inappropriate citations Underciting, citation amnesia Citing work (either one’s own or another’s to boost article’s popularity) Ghostwriting Honorary/gift authorship

Responsible Authorship & Publication Ethics Publication ethics Publications Abstract, Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results, Discussion, Citations/references, Acknowledgements Funding support, Conflict of interest Use of animals (IACUC) & human subjects (IRB) Biohazards Sharing data/novel reagents Reproducibility/statistics

Responsible Authorship & Publication Ethics Publication ethics Selection of journal-how? Perceived cracks in the system Retraction system—how well does it work? Subscription only journals vs. open access Impact factor Questionable/unethical publication practices Inappropriately dividing data analysis/experiments into small units for increased publications (salami publishing) Publishing too similar articles for increased publications

Responsible Authorship & Publication Ethics Peer review (mostly as pertains to journal publications) Responsibilities of the reviewer, of the journal. Maintaining confidentiality Timeliness of the review Fair and balanced criticisms, non-personal Noting any conflicts of interest Should mentors let trainees review a manuscript? If so, how should this be done? Questionable/unethical peer review practices Manipulating the recommending reviewers system to nominate those who will uncritically examine your work (a colleague, friend)

Responsible Authorship & Publication Ethics Peer review (mostly as pertains to journal publications) Responsibilities of the reviewer, of the journal. Maintaining confidentiality Timeliness of the review Fair and balanced criticisms, non-personal Noting any conflicts of interest Should mentors let trainees review a manuscript? If so, how should this be done? Questionable/unethical peer review practices Manipulating the recommending reviewers system to nominate those who will uncritically examine your work (a colleague, friend)

Responsible Authorship & Publication Ethics Research policies –special considerations, Industry There is a tendency at times to be so desirous of building external relationships that investigators can be willing to compromise their rights to publish. We have seen cases, over and over again (and particularly when working with industry), that researchers think this is a temporary thing and that they only need to compromise just this one time in order to build the relationship. The problem is that industry and other partners may and probably do have different interests in their publication practices (e.g. protecting their proprietary interest). So, these research collaborators and partners try to assert restrictions or downright approval on intended publications. The most dangerous situation is when the partners agree to acceptable terms in a sponsored agreement, but then negotiate "side-deals" with the investigators that contradict the sponsored agreements. This places the investigators in conflict with their university responsibilities, forces the investigators to defy the terms of the sponsored agreement. They also place themselves in the position of essentially being named as authors of publications that do not then represent the true finds of their own research.

Responsible Authorship & Publication Ethics Research policies –special considerations, Classified research Classified research which requires a security clearance by any public or private agency will not be conducted under Boston College's auspices, except perhaps in time of national emergency. Sponsored funding may not be accepted by the University if there is a high probability or certainty that a faculty member's work will later be covered by classification or confidentiality restrictions. Research, the results of which cannot be made public or in any other way negatively affects a student's ability to freely discuss his or her work, shall not be used as the basis of a thesis or dissertation. The source of sponsorship and purpose of a sponsored activity must be of such a nature that they can be publicly disclosed. All research or other projects involving human subjects, animal subjects, and/or hazardous or potentially hazardous biological, chemical, or radiological agents must be conducted in accordance with the guidelines, policies, and procedures as may be established by the University for such work.