Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies?

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 243-256

  Jones, Anne Hudson ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Authorship; Authorship policies; Contributors; Guarantors; Scientific misconduct; Scientific societies

Indexed keywords

AUTHORITY; CONFERENCE PAPER; ETHICS; HISTORY; HUMAN; MEDICAL SCHOOL; ORGANIZATION; POLICY; PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; RESPONSIBILITY; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF MEDICAL JOURNAL EDITORS; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; UNITED STATES; WRITING;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF MEDICAL JOURNAL EDITORS;

AUTHORSHIP; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; SCHOOLS, MEDICAL; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SOCIETIES, SCIENTIFIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0038160960     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-003-0011-3     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (46)

1. Rennie, D., Yank, V. & Emanuel, L. (1997) When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable. Journal of the American Medical Association 278: 579-85.
2. Horton, R. (2000) The imagined author. In: Jones, A.H. & McLellan, F., eds., Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 30-58.
3. Australian Vice-chancellors' Committee. (1997) Authorship. Chap. 3 in Joint NHMRC/AVCC statement and guidelines on research practice. http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~jz/write/glrespra.htm#g3. Site accessed 1 April 2003.
4. Society for Neuroscience. (1998) Guidelines: Responsible conduct regarding scientific communication. http://apu.sfn.org/content/Publications/Guidelines2/index.html. Site accessed 9 April 2003.
5. Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty. (1998) Guidelines concerning authorship. In The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty: Guidelines for good scientific practice. Copenhagen: Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty. See also http://www.forsk.dk/eng/uvvu/publ/guidelines98/kap5.htm. Site accessed 1 April 2003.
6. Jones, A.H. (1997) Authorship policies in US medical schools: Report of a survey. Paper presented at the 3d International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications, 18 September, Prague, Czech Republic. http://www.amaassn.org/public/peer/ausu.htm. Site accessed 1 April 2003.
7. Jones, A.H. (2000) Changing traditions of authorship. In: Jones, A.H. & McLellan, F., eds., Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 3-29.
8. Friedman, P.J. (1993) Standards for authorship and publication in academic radiology. Association of University Radiologists' Ad Hoc Committee on Standards for the Responsible Conduct of Research. Radiology 189: 33-34.
9. Friedman, P.J. (1993) Standards for authorship and publication in academic radiology. Association of University Radiologists' Ad Hoc Committee on Standards for the Responsible Conduct of Research. Investigative Radiology 28: 879-81.
10. Friedman, P.J. (1993) Standards for authorship and publication in academic radiology. Association of University Radiologists' Ad Hoc Committee on Standards for the Responsible Conduct of Research. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 161: 899-900.
11. LaFollette, M.C. (1992) Stealing into print: Fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
12. Culliton, B.J. (1983) Coping with fraud: The Darsee case. Science 220: 31-35.
13. Culliton, B.J. (1983) Emory reports on Darsee's fraud. Science 220: 936.
14. [Huth, E.J.] (1983) Responsibilities of coauthorship. Annals of Internal Medicine 99: 256-57.
15. Knox, R. (1983) The Harvard fraud case: Where does the problem lie? Journal of the American Medical Association 249: 1797-1807.
16. Relman, A.S. (1983) Lessons from the Darsee affair. New England Journal of Medicine 308: 1415-17.
17. Kastor, J.A. (1984) Authorship and the Darsee case. International Journal of Cardiology 5: 7-11.
18. Locke, R. (1986) Another damned by publications. Nature 324: 401.
19. Braunwald, E. (1987) On analysing scientific fraud. Nature 325: 215-16.
20. Engler, R.L., Covell, J.W, Friedman, P.J., Kitcher, P.S. & Peters, R.M. (1987) Misrepresentation and responsibility in medical research. New England Journal of Medicine 317: 1383-89.
21. Stewart, W.W. & Feder, N. (1987) The integrity of the scientific literature. Nature 325: 207-14.
22. Powledge, T.M. (1988) NEJM's Arnold Relman. The Scientist, 21 March, 12-13.
23. Fye, W.B. (1990) Medical authorship: Traditions, trends, and tribulations. Annals of Internal Medicine 113: 317-25.
24. Huth, E.J. (1986) Abuses and uses of authorship. Annals of Internal Medicine 104: 266-67.
25. th ed. Annals of Internal Medicine 126: 36-47.
26. th ed. Rev. and updated. www.icmje.org/index.html. Site accessed 24 March 2003.
27. Huth, E.J. (1986) Guidelines on authorship of medical papers. Annals of Internal Medicine 104:269-74.
28. Shulkin, D.J., Goin, J.E. & Rennie D. (1993) Patterns of authorship among chairmen of departments of medicine. Academic Medicine 68: 688-92.
29. Eastwood, S. (2000) Ethical scientific reporting and publication: Training the trainees. In: Jones, A.H. & McLellan, F., eds., Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 250-75.
30. Chang, K. (2002) Panel says Bell Labs scientist faked discoveries. New York Times, 26 September. http://webpages.marshall.edu/~vbragin/ethics/BellLabsFraudulentData.pdf. Site accessed 3 April 2003.
31. Service, R.F. (2002) Pioneering physics papers under suspicion for data manipulation. Science 296: 1376-77.
32. Gunsalus, C.K. (2000) Scientific misconduct: policy issues. In: Jones, A.H. & McLellan, F., eds., Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 223-49.
33. Commission on Research Integrity (Ryan Commission). (1995) Integrity and misconduct in research: Report of the Commission on Research Integrity to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the House Committee on Commerce and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. See also http://www.faseb.org/opar/cri.html. Site accessed 1 April 2003.
34. Yale University School of Medicine. (1991) Guidelines for the responsible conduct of research at Yale University School of Medicine. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University School of Medicine.
35. Yale University School of Medicine. (1997) Guidelines for the responsible conduct of research at Yale University School of Medicine. http://grants.med.yale.edu/guidelin.html. Site accessed 1 April 2003.
36. Faculty of Medicine Harvard University. (1996) Faculty policies on integrity in science (adopted 16 February 1988). Boston, Mass.: Harvard Medical School.
37. University of Louisville School of Medicine. (1988) Guidelines and resource material for the ethical conduct and reporting of research and procedures for handling allegations of unethical research activities at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. Louisville, Ky.: University of Louisville School of Medicine.
38. Faculty of Medicine Harvard University. (2000) Authorship guidelines. In Faculty policies on integrity in science. http://www.hms.harvard.edu/integrity/authorship.html. Site accessed 1 April 2003.
39. American Psychological Association. (1992) Publication credit. Section 6.23 in Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist 47: 1597-1611. See also http://www.apa.org/ethics/code1992.html#6.23. Site accessed 9 April 2003.
40. Rush Medical College. (1996) Investigator/authorship guidelines of Rush Medical College. Chicago: Rush Medical College.
41. Fotion, N. & Conrad, C.C. (1984) Authorship and other credits. Annals of Internal Medicine 100: 592-94.
42. Horton, R. (1997) The signature of responsibility. Lancet 350: 5-6.
43. Smith, R. (1997) Authorship is dying: Long live contributorship. British Medical Journal 315: 744-48.
44. (2003) Why do scientists join societies? The Scientist, 10 March. http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2003/mar/upfront3_030310.html. Site accessed 8 March 2003.
45. Zigmond, M. (2003) Implementing Ethics in the Professions: Preparing Guidelines on Scientific Communication for the Society for Neuroscience. Science and Engineering Ethics 9: 191-200.
46. Tarnow, E. (1999) The authorship list in science: Junior physicists' perceptions of who appears and why. Science and Engineering Ethics 5: 73-88. See also http://onlineethics.org/essays/author/author.html. Site accessed 1 April 2003.