# Presentation: 064590

## Coverage of Authorship and Publication Practices in Scientific Societies’ Ethics Codes 

- Miguel Roig
- Associate Professor of Psychology
- roigm@stjohns.edu

## The importance of “Official” guidelines

- Perceptions of authorship and publication practices (e.g., gift authorship, duplicate publication) seem to differ across disciplines (e.g., social vs. biomedical sciences; even within the biomedical sciences).
- How do “official guidelines” handle these issues?

## Background

- Mary Scheetz (2002)* carried out a content analysis of “instructions to authors” (IA) of a sample of 41 biomedical journals.
- Results revealed that the majority of journals lacked adequate coverage of “key” research integrity (RI) themes.
- Roig & Marks (2004)** found that a comparable sample of psychology journals provided somewhat less coverage of RI themes than biomedical journals.
- *ORI 2002 conference**ORI 2004 conference

## Background

- Bullock & Panicker (2003) carried out a qualitative-descriptive review of a sample of ethics codes. They reported the following underlying themes:
- “Maintain integrity in conducting and reporting research, giving expert consultation, in delivering service”.
- Bullock & Panicker, 2003. S&EE, vol 9, 159-170

## Background

- Bullock & Panicker (2003):
- “Remain within the boundaries of trained competence; follow all applicable rules, regulations and procedures”.
- “Do no harm to the discipline, to research participants, to institutions, to clients, or to society”.
- Bullock & Panicker, 2003. S&EE, 9, 159-170

## Background

- Iverson, Frankel & Siang (2003) surveyed 57 scientific societies and found that 56% of their ethics codes (N = 32) included publication ethics.
- 48% of the sample contained statements on plagiarism.
- 45% contained statements on duplicate publication, but only 5 societies defined the concept in detail.
- 36% mentioned authorship responsibility (in the context of a misconduct charge).
- Iverson, Frankel, & Siang, 2003. S&EE, 9, 141-158.

## Method

- The ethics codes of 44 scientific societies listed in Bullock & Panicker’s (2003) study were downloaded and examined for their treatment of elements pertaining to authorship and publication practices within the scope of responsible research conduct.

## Method

- Each code of ethics was reviewed for the presence of terminology and coverage related to authorship and publication topics, such as plagiarism, dual publication, publication credit, multiple authorship, and authorship with students.
- The total number of words devoted to authorship was recorded and an estimate of the general quality of coverage was also made.

## Method

- Research/Service (N = 19)
- Am Assoc. for Marriage and Family Therapy	American Assoc.of Petroleum Geologists
- American Chemical Society 			American College of Forensic Examiners
- American Dental Association			American Dietetic Association
- Am Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics	American Institute of Chemists
- American Medical Association		American Psychological Association
- American Society of Civil Engineers		American Soc. of Mechanical Engineers
- American Statistical Association		Australian Psychological Limited
- British Psychological Society 		Canadian Psychological Association
- National Association of Applied Anthropology	National Assoc. of School Psychologists
- Singapore Psychological Society

## Method

- 		Service Delivery (N = 9)
- American Association of Petroleum Geologists
- American Institute of Professional Geologists
- American Registry of Radiologic Technologists
- American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science
- American Speech, Language and Hearing Association
- Ass. of Professional Engineering and Geoscientists of British Columbia
- Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
- National Association for the Practice of Anthropology
- National Association of Social Workers

## Method

- Research/Application (N = 16)
- Alberta Society of Professional Biologists	American Anthropological Association
- American Educational Research Association 	American Mathematical Society
- American Meteorological Society		American Physical Society
- American Physiological Society		American Political Science Association
- American Oil Chemists’ Society		American Society of Agronomy
- American Soc. for Biochem. and Mol. Bio.	American Society for Information Science
- Am Soc for Photogrametry and Remote Sensing	American Sociological Association
- Archeological Institute of America		Ecological Society of America

## Results

- Twenty eight of the 44 ethics codes examined (64%) provided some coverage of authorship issues.
- The extent of coverage varied widely with some codes providing a mere two or three sentences which, in some cases, appeared only indirectly related to authorship.

## Sample Short Authorship Statement

**Archeological Institute of America**
**   **
- Professional archeologists owe consideration to their colleagues, striving at all times to be fair, never plagiarize and give credit where due.

## Results

**	****	****	****	**

**Table 1. Frequency of coverage by type of organization.**
**__________________________________________________****	****	****	****	****	****Coverage**
**	****____________________________________________**
**	****	****	****          ****Yes****	****	****            No**
**__________________________________________________**
**Variable         **
- Research/Service	    14  **(74%)****	**	        5  **(26%)** Service Delivery               3  **(33%)****	**	        6  **(67%)**Research/Application     11  **(69%)****	**	        5  **(31%)**
**__________________________________________________**

## Results

**	****	****	****	**

**Table 2. Average number of words in coverage.**
**____________________________________________________****	****	****	****	****Extent of Coverage**
**	****______________________________________________**
**	****	****	**** ****Mean****	****	****  Sd****	****          Min.   Max.         ____________________________________________________**
**Variable         **
- Research/Service	  **193.79  ****	****174.86  ****	****24      618**Service Delivery           **101.33****	****   71.81            19      151**Research/Application   **252.33            262.59             21      807**
-   **____________________________________________________**

## Results

**	****	****	****	**

**Table 3.  Number of codes that mention F, F, or P.**
**__________________________________________________****	****	****	****	****	****Coverage**
**	****____________________________________________**
**	****	****	****          ****Yes****	****	****            No**
**__________________________________________________**
**Variable         **
- Falsification 		    11  **(25%)****	**	      33  **(75%)** Fabrication	                 9   **(20%)****	**	      35  **(80%)**Plagiarism	               15   **(34%)****	**	      29  **(66%)**
**__________________________________________________**

## Results

**	****	****	****	**

**Table 4.  Frequency of coverage of various authorship variables.****__________________________________________________****	****	****	****	****	****Coverage**
**	****	****	****          ****Yes****	****	****            No****__________________________________________________       **
- Duplicate publication       8   **(18%)****	**	      36  **(82%)**Order of Collaborators     6   **(14%)****	**	      38  **(86%)**   Contributorship ack.       15  **(34%)****	**	      29  **(66%)**Publication credit	    21  **(48%)****	****	**      23  **(52%)**Citing sources	      	    10  **(23%)****	**	      34  **(73%)****__________________________________________________       **

## Results

**	****	****	****	**

**Table 4.  Frequency of coverage of various authorship variables (continued).****__________________________________________________****	****	****	****	****	****Coverage**
**	****	****	****	****Yes****	****	****            No**
**__________________________________________________**
- Accuracy of pub.              18  **(18%)****	** 	      26  **(82%)**Publication w students       9  **(20%)****	**	      35  **(80%)**   Copyright issues 	       3  **(07%)****	**	      41  **(93%)**Conflict of interest	     13  **(30%)****	**	      31  **(70%)**General authorship	     17  **(39%)****	**	      27  **(61%)****__________________________________________________**

## Sample Statements

**American Psychological Association**:
- Psychologists do not present portions of another's work or data as their own, even if the other work or data source is cited occasionally.
**Australian Psychological Limited:**
- Members must not present substantial portions or elements of another’s work or data as their own.

## Sample Statements

**American Political Science Association**:
- As advisers, faculty members are not entitled to claim joint authorship with a student of a thesis or dissertation.
**Australian Psychological Limited:**
- If the student does not submit a manuscript for publication in a reasonable period of time after completion of the research ..., then the supervisor may publish the research and assume primary authorship and the student must be listed as an author.

## Sample Statements

**American Society of Mechanical Engineers:**
- ASME defines plagiarism as the use or presentation of the ideas or words of another person from an existing source without appropriate acknowledgment to that source. ASME views any similar misappropriation of intellectual property, which may include data or interpretation, as plagiarism.
- (What about an idea that is conveyed verbally and then  misappropriated?)

## Recommendations

- Because of the increase cross-disciplinary research and international collaborations there is a need for:
- clearer and expanded guidelines related to authorship and publication practices.
- harmonization of ethical guidelines.
- The leadership of professional associations are strongly encouraged to augment these sections with relevant guidelines.