Transcript MUSC Postdoctoral Retreat on the Responsible Conduct of Research “Authorship, Peer Review, and Plagiarism” Ed Krug BioE101 876-2404 [email protected] 09/27/2012

MUSC Postdoctoral Retreat on the
Responsible Conduct of Research
“Authorship, Peer Review, and Plagiarism”
Ed Krug
BioE101
876-2404
[email protected]
09/27/2012
Should I Be Listed As an Author?
An assistant professor in the genetics department, Thomas, is working on a project looking
at colon cancer tissue specimens. After five years at the university, he is hoping to advance
to associate professor when he goes up for tenure review in the next year.
One afternoon, Thomas approaches a senior colleague Dev and asks if he has some time to
meet with him and advise him on one of his research projects. Eager to help a very
promising young faculty member, Dev chats with Thomas about his project and encourages
him. He also provides him with a polymerase reagent for genetic analysis that has been on
backorder and thus unavailable for quite some time. Thomas is delighted at the way
professors in the genetics department at his university collaborate and share lab supplies
and equipment, no questions asked. Dev thinks nothing of it; he is glad to help out and wants
to ensure the progress of the study when necessary.
A year later, Dev is on his department’s Tenure Committee and sees that Thomas is coming
up for promotion to associate professor. As Dev looks through his young colleague’s
dossier, he sees that Thomas has published a number of articles on his genetic analysis of
colon cancer. However, one of the articles that was recently submitted to an eminent journal
in his field has listed Dev as a co-author. Dev is astounded. He knew nothing of this, and
certainly did not review and approve the final manuscript with his name on it. He closes
Thomas’s file, perturbed by what he has seen.
What should Dev do?
http://ori.hhs.gov/case-three-should-i-be-listed-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.”
http://www.icmje.org/#author
The best time to discuss authorship policies is
before joining the lab!
A good time to discuss authorship is when
starting a project - knowing it might change as
the research proceeds.
The worst time to discuss authorship is after the
manuscript is complete.
“Honorary” authorship is no honor!
All authors share in the praise as
well as in the condemnation!
Peer Review
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
Things you don’t want to read in the
critique of your 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
http://public.csr.nih.gov/ApplicantResources/
Pages/default.aspx
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
Nature's peer review debate
•Nature's trial of open peer review - Greaves, et al.
•Online frontiers of the peer-reviewed literature - Bloom
•Trusting data�s quality - Riley
•Opening up the process - Sandewall
•An open, two-stage peer-review journal - Koop and Pöschl
•Reviving a culture of scientific debate - Koonin, et al.
•The true purpose of peer review - Jennings
•Models of quality control for scientific research – Jefferson
•Statistics in peer review - Ozonoff
•How can we research peer review? - Sieber
•Trust and reputation on the web - Arms
•Detecting misconduct – Benos
•Increasing accountability - Lee and Bero
•Evolving peer review for the internet - Akerman
•Wisdom of the crowds - Anderson
•Certification in a digital era - Van de Sompel
•The case for group review - Lahiri
•Peer review of interdisciplinary scientific papers - Lee
•'I don�t know what to believe' - Brown
•The pros and cons of open peer review – DeCoursey
http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html
Peer Review Resources
http://research-ethics.net/topics/peer-review/#discussion
Plagiarism
http://www.dontwasteyourtime.co.uk/video/videoplagiarism-elearning-plagiarism/
US HHS ORI Policy on Plagiarism
“Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas,
processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.”
“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.”
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” is an irresponsible research
practice that can have serious consequences.
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.
http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism
PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE!
• Take notes at every talk you attend - no “paper” crutch!
• Always take notes in your own words when you read a paper
(your words reflect your understanding).
• Learn the terminology of your discipline.
• Establish good “pre-writing” habits.
• Practice summarizing the writing of others often.
• Do a critical comparison with the original text - verify with your
advisor/mentor - or use a “plagiarism detection” program, e.g.
http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/macro.html
• When in doubt - ask.
• Imitate style not content!
• Use the Writing Center at MUSC or an on-line resource, e.g.
http://www.utm.utoronto.ca/library/utml/common/selectedsites/res
earchwriting.html
• http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/plagiarism/0.shtml