[MUSIC] Hi, in this module we're going to move away from issues related to research subjects in social science research. And talk about some of the issues that arise ethical and professional issues. Issues that arise when we are engaged in seeking research funding and trying to publish. I'll talk first about publication. Publication at most places is required for promotion. So we talk about publish or perish. The emphasis at most institutions, universities, and elsewhere, is on publication in peer-reviewed journals with, what we call, high impact, journals that tend to be sided highly in other manuscripts. Novel results on widely recognized topics are generally the easiest to publish. Research funding may also be required for promotion, that's increasingly the case. Now, the pressures to publish and generate research funding, create problems, they create challenges, they create pressures for researchers that sometimes lead to ethical or professional issues. So, I want to talk first, about ethical issues in research proposals and manuscripts. One of the big ones, that's a recurring concern is, the failure to disclose known, or relevant limitations of data or methods. There are situations where people in their eagerness to make a point in a paper, or a research proposal, will simply omit known problems with the data that they are using. Or with the methods that they are using hoping that no reader familiar with these data or methods, reads the manuscript to the proposal and that it is able to get through and get published. We also have problems sometimes where people exaggerate the novelty of their findings, by specifically avoiding the mention of previous relevant studies. This is especially the case when it comes to people acknowledging studies that have been done is disciplines, that are other than their own discipline but fundamentally on the same subject. Now, sometimes this is just ignorance. They may not reading journals outside of their own field, sometimes it seems to be deliberate. You have to acknowledge work related to your own, even if it's another discipline, you can try to highlight or exaggerate the novelty of your own work by simply ignoring the existence of other work. Misrepresenting the conclusions of previous studies. So periodically, I see this sometimes when I'm reviewing manuscripts or research proposals. People simply misstating the conclusion of a previous research study, in order to justify their own choice of data, their own choice of method, or their rational for conducting their study. In some cases, I've seen my own work completely reversed in terms of the way it's discussed and the implications discussed in other work. Another issue that comes up a lot in manuscripts is the selective presentation of results. People acting like lawyers, in the sense that they select and present evidence that's favorable to their own argument. While simply ignoring or suppressing evidence from their own research, that may actually challenge some of their conclusions. And then making claims, drawing conclusions that are not actually supported by the evidence. So, we sometimes see manuscripts or proposals where perhaps the results are there, the methods are fine, the data are fine, and there's a nice set of results. But then the claims that are made at the end of the paper, about what the results imply, actually have nothing to do or go well beyond what you can get from those results. Now, these are general issues. All I can do right here is sensitize you, highlight them to you, for you to think about as you move forward in your own careers. Now, there's some special ethical issues that arise in manuscript co-authorship that you need to think about. We have sometimes cases where senior researchers demand to be listed as co-authors on papers by subordinates. Even though they had nothing to do with those papers. Department shares demanding to be included as co-authors on papers written by assistant professors, as a condition for promotions, sort of thing. Unfortunately, it happens and we have to watch out for it. Senior researchers demanding to be identified as a lead-author when their contribution doesn't really warrant it. So, we have an accepted standard that sometimes for a research group, a senior researcher because they are providing lab facilities, providing guidance, providing mentoring. They are recognized with co-authorship but perhaps listed as the last author on the paper, where the contribution is somehow recognized. But then, they go beyond the customary role according to, say, senior investigators, and demand that they be identified as a lead or first author on a paper, again, when their contribution doesn't warrant it. Collaborators who did make contributions being excluded or dropped from co-authorship. This happens periodically, and it's a scandal when it does occur. And then in some extreme cases there are some places, some countries where we know that there have been situations, where people paid to have their names added as co-authors to a paper that had been accepted for publication in a major journal. And while it's still forthcoming, even though they had not touched the paper, or being involved in anything related to the paper or the research. So these are ethical issues that erupt or arise periodically, and you need to be aware of. They're not necessarily common, but these pressures do exist because of the demand that people publish. And you need to be aware of at least the potential for these kinds of problems to arise. Now, the best way to make sure that problems don't arise with co-authorship, is for everyone to have clear expectations when they go into the process of co-authoring a paper. It's important to note that these standards for deciding co-authorship, including whether or not people are included as co-authors, vary tremendously across disciplines, and even sub-disciplines. So what seems totally normal in one discipline may be completely different, or unusual in another discipline. Principles for the ordering of authors also vary, so in some disciplines, for example economics, co-authors are almost always listed alphabetically by surname. In other disciplines, the co-authors may be listed according to the importance of their contribution to the paper, and in some disciplines, even more complex principles arise. With perhaps the lab director or a PI of a major project always being listed as the last author. While the first author is the one who made the primary contributions, with many other people, perhaps dozens or hundreds, listed in between. Intellectual contributions are normally recognized by co-authorship. But again, disciplines vary in terms of what they regard as intellectual contributions. So, typically, we think of intellectual contributions as including the provision of key ideas, now that's not just tossing off some idea in a conversation, but actually making a substantive contribution that effects the direction of the paper. Contributions to analysis, contributions of written text, and, of course, contributions possibly of proprietary data, in which the production of the data was itself an intellectual effort. Routine, well-defined tasks, doing under direct supervision or with pay, are rarely recognized with co-authorship. So, simply being an RA on somebody's project and doing something in a very routine way under close supervision, may not normally qualify as co-authorship especially if they're paid. Now, some journals increasingly allow for a detailed description of the contributions made by each of the co-authors, so think about this in terms of planning ahead when your talking about co-authoring a paper with somebody. I want to talk also about some the of the issues that come up in peer review. We do know that there are cases where there are problems with peer review and the reason that we care about peer review so much, is that the funding. The publications that are subjected to peer review are generally considered the most important and prestigious. Now, research proposals and manuscripts are typically reviewed by peers with relevant expertise, that's what we refer to when we say peer review. Funding agencies and journals maintain lists of reviewers with expertise in different areas, and send proposals and manuscripts to them. They weigh the feedback from these reviewers, and when they make a decision about whether to publish or perhaps offer research funding. Now, problems arise when we see situations where manuscript reviewers demand for example, their own possibly irrelevant work be cited as a condition for recommending acceptance. That's generally unacceptable, but it happens. In some cases we know that reviewers have rejected manuscripts or research proposals because they are competing in the same area, and recognize the paper as a good one and reject it, in fact because it's good and they're worried about the competition. There are also cases that we're aware of where reviewers have appropriating ideas from papers or proposals, and then use them in their own work without attribution or without contacting the authors. In other cases, there have been failures to disclose relationships with the authors of manuscripts or proposals. Now, I don't want to suggest that these problems are wide spread or that the field is somehow in jeopardy. But these are all things about which you may hear anecdotes, stories, and so forth as you move forward in your career. And you have to be aware that these things can happen. And be vigilant. You don't want to get yourself involved in any of these situations. So keep an eye out when you're planning collaborations and when you're preparing research proposals and getting ready to submit manuscripts. And think about the if you are reviewing manuscripts or proposals.
