EthicalGuidelines: Publicationand Authorship · Authorship An “author” is generally considered...

Norwegian University of Life SciencesGuidelines, Publication and Authorship 1

Ethical Guidelines:Publication and [email protected]

2

Research Ethics Committees and Boards

• National Research Ethics Committees (www.etikkom.no)

–Science and Technology (NENT)–Humanities and Social Research (NESH)–Medicine (NEM)

• Nasjonal Granskingsutvalget (GRU) - The National Committe for investigations into misconduct in research

• Biotechnology Advisory Board (www.bion.no)• Technology Advisory Board (www.teknologirådet.no)

RESEACH ETHICS PHI401 Deborah Oughton

UiO

• UiO Research Ethics http://www.uio.no/english/for-employees/support/research/ethics/index.html

–UiO's 10 commandments for ethical practice in research

–Håndbok for god forskningsskikk–Forskningsetisk utvalg

ETHICAL GUIDELINES MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton


Ethical Guidelines

• General guidelines – NENT (www.etikkom.no)• Guidelines for publication and review – The

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) – “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals” (the Vancouver Convention) www.icmje.org

• Data Protection Official for Research/ Personvernombud for forsking/NSD www.nsd.uib.no/personvern/

Research Ethics Guidelines• General guidelines – NENT and NESH (www.etikkom.no)

- Research Ethics Guidelines for Natural Science and Technology (NENT) - Research Ethics Guidelines for Social Sciences, Humanites, Law and

Theology


Research Ethics Guidelines• Norwegian Research Ethics Committees (www.etikkom.no)

–General guidelines for research ethics–Medical and health research–Science and technology–The social sciences, law and the humanities–Ethical Guidelines for Internet Research–Research Ethics Checklist

- All available in Norwegian and English



Ethical Guidelines

• General guidelines – NENT (www.etikkom.no)• Guidelines for publication and review – The

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) – “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals” (the Vancouver Convention) www.icmje.org

• Data Protection Official for Research/ Personvernombud for forsking/NSD www.nsd.uib.no/personvern/

9

Ethical Issues in Publication• Authorship is the most common source of arguments

and misconduct allegations• Responsibility of co-authors is a key issue in fraud

cases

”If you have co-authors problems about authorshipcan range from the trivial to the catastrophic” -Maeve O’Connor, quoted in Day and Gastel ”How to Write a Scientific Paper” CUP.

Publication and Authorship – [email protected]

• Number of co-authors – 20 common in biology –record over 5000

10

Ethical Issues in Publication(cont.)

Slafer, 2005, Field Crops Research


«Fruit-fly paper» 1000+ authors

Norwegian University of Life SciencesPublication and Authorshio –Deborah.Oughton@nmbu,ni

11

Higgs bosun paper 2015 – 5000+ authors


12

Number of authors per publication - Norway

13 Forskningspolitikk 3/2013 www.fpol.no

• Publication bias – only positive results getpublished

• Reviewing processes

14


C. Wenneras and A. Wold, Nepotism and sexism in peer-review, Nature 387 341ﾐ343; 1997

Lutz Bornmann,et al., Journal of Informatics 2007

Nature 14.09.09: Sneak test shows positive-paper biasReviewers keener to give thumbs up to papers with positive results


Sexism in Science


15

Lise Meitner, Getty Images

Rosalind Franklin, Science Source

Esther Lederberg, Science Source

… simply, usless (sexist) reviewers


16

Predatory Journals


17

Guardian, 25 November 2014Guardian, 21 October 2016

Hoax papers

18Publication and Authorship – [email protected]

Retraction of papers

Fang et al., 2012, Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications PNAS, 109: 17028–17033, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109

19

(A) Number of retracted articles for specific causes by year of retraction. (B) Percentage of publishedarticles retracted for fraud or suspected fraud by year of publication (Fang et al, 2012).

Reproducibility of studies

• Large number ofbiomedical studies are not or cannot be reproduced(up to 50-90%)


20

Retractions and Reproducibilityof studies

21

• Authorship:–Role of technicians and field-workers–Role of supervisor and heads of departments

22



Authorship Practice in yourown field

• Is your supervisor always a co-author?• How do you decide who is on the author list?• How do you decide the order?


24

ICMJE – ”Vancouver Recommendations”• The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

(ICMJE) • A small group of editors of general medical journals met

informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group.

• Recommendations first published 1979, present version from 2016 www.icmje.org

• Adapted in other disciplines


25

Contents• I. About the Recommendations• II. Roles and Responsibilities of Authors, Contributors,

Reviewers, Editors, Publishers and Owners• III. Publishing and Editorial Issues Related to Publication In

Medical Journals• IV Manuscript Preparation and Submission


26

II. Roles and Responsibilities 2013

• Authorship and Contributorship– Byline Authors – Contributors Listed in Acknowledgements

• Editorship– The Role of the Editor – Editorial Freedom

• Peer Review• Conflicts of Interest

– Potential Conflicts of Interest Related to Individual Authors' Commitments – Potential Conflicts of Interest Related to Project Support – Potential Conflicts of Interest Related to Commitments of Editors, Journal Staff, or

Reviewers • Privacy and Confidentiality

– Patients and Study Participants – Authors and Reviewers

• Protection of Human Subjects and Animals in Research


2016

27

Criteria for credit - Vancouver• Authorship credit should be based on:• 1) Substantial contributions to: the conception or

design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

• 2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND

• 3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND • 4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the

work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.


28

Criteria – cont.• 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.

• The authorship criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion 2 or 3. Therefore all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.


29

Authorship

An “author” is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study, and biomedical authorship continues to have important academic, social, and financial implications.

(1) In the past, readers were rarely provided with information about contributions to studies from those listed as authors and in acknowledgments.

(2) Some journals now request and publish information about the contributions of each person named as having participated in a submitted study, at least for original research. Editors are strongly encouraged to develop and implement a contributorshippolicy, as well as a policy on identifying who is responsible for the integrity of the work as a whole.


Group Discussions –Authorship and Publication

Handout with some discussion cases• Use the cases to explore differences between different

disciplines, or countries.• Discuss the “Sticky Supervisor case” • Discuss the case if you have time


30

Group Discussion 1115-1200

[email protected] MNSES9100 S

• Group 1: HE Aud 2 front• Group 2: HE Aud 2 back• Group 3: HE Seminarrom U30• Group 4: HE Seminarrom U36• Group 5: HE Seminarrom 234 • Group 6: HE Canteen

Feedback Session 1315 HE Aud 2

32

Discussion Case: The Sticky Supervisor …• Jan White took his Masters degree at the Department of Geography with Professor

Brown and Doctor Green as supervisors.• He is now engaged on a PhD project on glacial studies with Green as his main

supervisor. Brown is not a supervisor. • Green and White write a paper that builds on some of the work carried out by White

in his masters study. It includes both old and new data and develops theories first introduced in the Masters thesis. Brown is thanked in the acknowledgements

• They submit to The Journal of Advanced Geography, who by mistake send it to Brown for review

• Brown reviews the paper, making extensive comments and revisions, and returns to the editor recommending publication, but only if he is included on the author list. He claims that the work includes data produced while he was White’s supervisor, and that he was originally responsible for the idea.

• Green and White object. White claims that Brown’s supervision was minimal during this particular part of the work, and that MSc data make up only 10% of the total. They have referred to both the masters thesis and Brown’s own publications in the article.

• Brown refuses and takes the case to the Department Head, who then forwards to the University misconduct committee.

• Assume you are on the committee. What is your initial reaction to the case? What information would you require for an evaluation?


TOO MANY AUTHORS SPOIL THE …? • Post doc Petter Part is over the moon to have landed his first international project

grant, funded by Bigbucks Mining Company. In collaboration with an institute from Usbekistan, the project will map an area to test a new model for predicting the potential for uranium mining. Six months later, after a successful and pleasant field work and much analysis, they have sufficient data for the first publication. Part writes the first draft and sends to Prof. Mustvic for her contribution and comments. He is a little surprised when the manuscript is returned, with many helpful comments and revisions, but also with a list of ten authors, half of whom Part has never heard of. He writes a polite mail to Mustvic and asks what contribution the various authors have made to the work. He is even more surprised with the reply that it is usual to include the entire research team as co-authors, even if only a few had carried out the actual work – since they only get paid a bonus if they can document publications. Part is rather embarrassed to have to explain that this isn’t common practice in Norway. Mustvic apologises and promises that next time she will share the work to ensure that all the team actually works on the project, but wants the author list to stay as it is since it is close to Christmas and bonus time.

• Is this an acceptable solution? Does it make any difference that it is industry rather than the public (government) that is funding the work?


USE OR ABUSE? • Sølje has an MSc in biochemistry and is working as a temporary research technician

in Professor Eggheads lab. In collaboration with one of Egghead’s post docs, Ståle Stabekk, she carries out analysis of organic pollutants in 200 blue mussel samples. Since there was no reference material for the analytical technique, the work included a certain amount of method development to calibrate the labs instruments, and she also provided advice of collection of sample material. The results were very promising and Egghead gets good feedback from a keynote lecture at the “Annual Ecotoxicology Meeting”. He and Stabekk start work on an article and ask Sølje to write a short description of the analytical method.

• Sølje sees a draft of the article on the printer and is shocked to see that she hasn’t been included as an author, only mentioned in the acknowledgements. She asks Stabekk, who replies that it is lab policy not to include technicians as authors. She wants to take the case up with Egghead, but is worried that it will ruin her chances to be included in other research projects.

• What advice would you give her?• Is it relevant to the case that Sølje wishes to continue in research as a PhD

students?


NENT Guidelines -2016• Overarching Obligations of Research

–Human rights, sustainability, peace, democracy, justice

• Good research practice–Including Publication and Authorship

• Uncertainty, risk and the precautionary principle• Protection of research subjects• Protection of animals in research• Relationship with traditional and alternative sources of

knowledge• Openness, contract research and conflicts of interest• Whistle-blowing and ethical responsibility• Research and popularization

…24 principles


Research Ethics Guidelines• General guidelines – NENT and NESH (www.etikkom.no)

- Research Ethics Guidelines for Natural Science and Technology (NENT) - Research Ethics Guidelines for Social Sciences, Humanites, Law and

Theology


37

“The overriding obligations of research to society” - 2016

www.etikkom.no ETHICAL GUIDELINES MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton

Personal and Institutional Responsibility

• A: Science/Research is value free : how the knowledge is, or may be, used is not an issue for science or scientists

• B: Scientists have an obligation to consider the possible positive and negative benefits of their research

• A: Governments and institutions bear the main/only responsibility for controlling the use and application of research.

• B: The ethical responsibility of scientists needs to be made more visible.

MNSES9100 Risk – Deborah Oughton

Stig S. Frøland, prof. Rikshospilatlet..does Utgard mean that natural scientists should try to predict how their results could be used or misused? … Utgard demands that scientists should undertake an ongoing idological and political assessment in theirresearch. This is incompatible with research… there is only one ethical demand for research: that it has acceptable quality and that the results are presentedas objectively as possible”

Letter in Aftenposten 29th April 2010

Ethics, Science and Society – Tuesday 30th

• What responsibility do scientists have for the possible negative consequences of their research?

• How should we best evaluate and balance the potential harms and benefits of research and technology?

• How to deal with risk and uncertainty?

Research Ethics – Deborah Oughton

The Modern University – Tuesday 30th

Research Ethics – Deborah Oughton

• Ziman Paper – Is Science Losing its Objectivity? (Available on MNSES Website)

41

NENT: Proposal for a Science Pledge (as part of PhD inauguration/graduation)

• ”I will carry out my activities as a scientist truthfully and honestly. I will endeavour to use my scientific knowledge for the benefit of mankind. I will show respect for animals and nature. I will act in accordance with research ethics, and shall not let ideology, religion, ethnicity, prejudice or material benefits impede my ethical responsibility as a researcher.”Revised text: MNSES students, Spring 2011


Would you like an oath to be part of your PhD graduation or inauguration

• Yes 30 • Maybe 10• No way 15


42


Essay Topics

• Carry out an ethical analysis of a research project• Argue for/against why scientists have responsibility for

the outcomes of their research• Carry out a risk-cost-benefit analysis of a research

project• Public perception of risk – what is rational, what is

irrational?• The importance of chance and uncertainty in any area of

science: determinism vs probabilistic; data treatment; ethical analysis

• The bridge between precautionary principle and science

44

The overriding obligations of research to mankind

1. Research shall be in accordance with human rights.

2. Research should be conducted in accordance with sustainable development and respect for the environment

3. Research should not hinder development of democracy

4. Research should not breach international conventions to promote peace.

5. Research should contribute to greater global justice

www.etikkom.no ETHICAL GUIDELINES MNSES9100 Deborah Oughton

Misinterpretation: all research projects and individual scientists need to show they are activelypromoting peace, sustainable development, …

Intention: - to recognise the potential for research to be misused-to recognise that the utimate aims of researchshould be for the benefit of humanity

Personal and Institutional Responsibility

• A: Science/Research is value free : how the knowledge is, or may be, used is not an issue for science or scientists

• B: Scientists have an obligation to consider the possible positive and negative benefits of their research

• A: Governments and institutions bear the main/only responsibility for controlling the use and application of research.

• B: The ethical responsibility of scientists needs to be made more visible.


Stig S. Frøland, prof. Rikshospilatlet..does Utgard mean that natural scientists should try to predict how their results could be used or misused? … Utgard demands that scientists should untertake an ongoing idological and political assessment in theirresearch. This is incompatible with research… there is only one ethical demand for research: that it has acceptable quality and that the results are presentedas objectively as possible”

Letter in Aftenposten 29th April 2010

EthicalGuidelines: Publicationand Authorship · Authorship An “author” is generally considered...

Documents

Transcript of EthicalGuidelines: Publicationand Authorship · Authorship An “author” is generally considered...