Authorship Issues and Conflict in the U.S. Academic Chemical Community

Accountability in Research

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 346-383

  Seeman, Jeffrey I ^a   House, Mark C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND   (United States)

^b Giant Steps Research   (United States)

Author keywords

authorship; collegiality; conflict resolution; mediation; mentoring; publication; responsible conduct of research (RCR)

Indexed keywords

CHEMISTRY; CONFLICT; ETHICS; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLISHING; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESEARCH ETHICS; STUDENT; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; CHEMISTRY; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); ETHICS, RESEARCH; FACULTY; HUMANS; PUBLISHING; STUDENTS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84938491095     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2015.1047707     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. American Chemical Society. 2006. Ethical guidelines to publication of chemical research. http://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1218054468605/ethics.pdf. (accessed June 5, 2015).
2. M.S.Anderson,, E.C.Oju, and T.M.R.Falkner. 2001a. Findings from the Acadia Institute graduate education study. Science and Engineering Ethics 7:487–503.
3. M.S.Anderson,, E.C.Oju, and T.M.R.Falkner. 2001b. Help from Faculty: Findings from the Acadia Institute Graduate Education Study. Science and Engineering Ethics 7:487–503.
4. M.S.Anderson, (2007). Commentary: Collective openness and other recommendations for the promotion of research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics 13: 387–394.
5. Anonymous. 2011. Update on the Requirement for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research (Notice Number: NOT-OCD-10-019). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html. (accessed June 5, 2015).
6. Anonymous reviewer. 2015.
7. D.Ariely, 2009. Predictably Irrational. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
8. S.J.Bird, 1997. Authorship under review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3:35–236.
9. S.J.Bird, 2001. Mentors, advisors and supervisors. Science and Engineering Ethics 7:455–468.
10. S.P.Borgatti,, M.G.Everett, and L.C.Freeman. 1999. UCINEDT 6.0 Version 1.00. UCINEDT 6.0 Version 1.00. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies.
11. E.A.Boyd,, and L.A.Bero 2007. Defining Financial Conflicts and Managing Research Relationships: An Analysis of University Conflict of Interest Committee Decisions. Science and Engineering Ethics 13:415–435.
12. D.A.Brown-Wright,, D.A.Dubick, and I.Newman. 1997. Graduate assistant expectation and faculty perceptions: Implications for mentoring and training. Journal of College Student Development. 38:410–415.
13. L.D.Claxton, 2005a. Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutation Research. 589:17–30.
14. L.D.Claxton, 2005b. Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutation Mutation Research. 589:31–345.
15. L.D.Claxton, 2007. A review of conflict of interest, competing interest, and bias for toxicologists. Toxicology and Industrial Health 23:557–571.
16. T.P.Clement, 2014. Authorship Matrix: A Rational Approach to Quantify Individual Contributions and Responsibilities in Multi-Author Scientific Articles. Science and Engineering Ethics 20:345–361.
17. M.B.Cohen,, E.Tarnow, and B.R.De Young. 2004. Coauthorship in pathology, a comparison with physics and a survey-generated and member-preferred authorship guideline. Medscape General Medicine 6:13.
18. B.P.Coppola, 2002. Treating graduate students with dignity. Chronicle Higher Ed. (August 9).
19. M.S.Davis,, K.L.Webster, and B.King. 2008. Narcissism, entitlement, and questionable practices of research in counseling: A pilot study. Journal of Counseling & Development 86:200–210.
20. M.D.Donohue,, and R.R.Kilburg. 2014. Academic Leadership. In What You Need for the First Job, Besides the Ph.D., M.Benvenuto, ed. American Chemical Society. DC: Washington.
21. A.Flanagin,, L.A.Carey, P.B.Fontanarosa, S.G.Philips, B.P.Pace, G.D.Lundberg, and D.Rennie. 1998. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association. 280:222–224.
22. J.Y.A.Foo, 2011. A.Retrospective Analysis of 10-Year Authorship Trends in Biomedical Engineering Journals. Accountability in Research. 18:91–101.
23. P.J.Friedman, 1997. Commentary on “A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science”. Science and Engineering Ethics 3:234–248.
24. Y.Gingras,, and P.-M.Gosselin. 2008. The Emergence and Evolution of the Expression ‘‘Conflict of Interests’’ in Science: A Historical Overview, 1880–2006. Science and Engineering Ethics 14: 337–343.
25. G.B.Gori, 2009. Conflict of interest and public policy. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 53:159–160.
26. S.S.Hall, 1998. Lethal chemistry at Harvard. New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/29/magazine/lethal-chemistry-at-harvard.html?n=Top/Reference/TimesTopics/Subjects/C/CollegesandUniversities&pagewanted=1. (accessed June 5, 2015).
27. R.Hoffmann, 2015. Tension in chemistry and its contents. Accountability Research 22: 330–345.
28. M.C.House,, and J.I.Seeman. 2010. Credit and Authorship Practices. Educational and Environmental Influences. Accountability in Research. 17 223–256.
29. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 2010. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html. (accessed June 5, 2015).
30. M.Kalichman,, M.Sweet, and D.Plemmons. 2014a. Standards of Scientific Conduct: Are There Any? Science and Engineering Ethics 20:885–896.
31. M.Kalichman,, M.Sweet, and D.Plemmons. 2014b. Standards of Scientific Conduct: Disciplinary Differences. Science and Engineering Ethics 20:885–896.
32. P.Keith-Spiegel,, G.P.Koocher, and J.Sieber. 2009. Abstract: What do researchers do when they observe or learn about irresponsible science? Office of Research Integrity Newsletter 15: 4.
33. D.Kennedy, 2003. Multiple authors, multiple problems. Science 301:733.
34. G.Koocher,, and P.Keith-Spiegel, 2010. Peers nip misconduct in the bud. Nature 466:438–440.
35. S.B.Krstić, 2014. Research Integrity Practices from the Perspective of Early-Career Researchers. Science and Engineering Ethics 20: in press.
36. M.J.Kuhar, 2008. On blacklisting in science. Science and Engineering Ethics 14:301–303.
37. M.J.Kuhar, 2009. Blacklisting among scientists. Synapse 63:539–540.
38. M.J.Kuhar,, and D.Cross. 2013. Collegial Ethics: Supporting Our Colleagues. Science and Engineering Ethics 19:677–684.
39. P.Laszlo, 2010. Quality information from the grapevine. Ambix 57: 202–215.
40. K.Lee,, R.Brownstein,. G.Mills, and I.S.Kohane. 2010. Does Collocation Inform the Impact of Collaboration? PLoS One 5(e14279): 1–6.
41. K.S.Louis,, M.S.Anderson, and L.Rosenberg. 1995. Academic misconduct and values: The department’s influence. The Review of Higher Education 18:393–422.
42. J.Lubalin, 1996. Survey of Accused but Exonerated Individuals in Research Misconduct Cases. Final Report. Rockville, MD: Office of Research Integrity, National Institutes of Health.
43. J.Lubalin,, M.E.Ardinid, and J.L.Matheson. 1995. Consequences of whistleblowing for the whistleblower in misconduct in science cases. Final Report. Report prepared for the Office of Research Integrity by the Research Triangle Institute. http://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/final.pdf. (accessed June 5, 2015).
44. C.MacDonald,, and B.Williams-Jones. 2009. Supervisor-student relations: Examining the spectrum of conflicts of interest in bioscience laboratories. Accountability in Research 16:106–126.
45. F.L.Macrina, 2007. Scientific Societies and Promotion of the Responsible Conduct of Research: Codes, Policies, and Education. Academic Medicine 82: 65–869
46. F.L.Macrina, 2014. Scientific Integrity. Washington, DC: ASM Press.
47. J.C.Magee,, and A.D.Galinsky. 2008. Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status. The Academy of Management Annals 2: 351–398.
48. I.I.I.A.G.Mainous., M.A.Bowman, and J.S.Zoller. 2002. THe importance of interpersonal relationship factors in decisions regarding authorship. Family. Medicine 34:462–467.
49. J.Malek, 2010. To Tell or Not to Tell? The Ethical Dilemma of the Would-Be Whistleblower. Accountability in Research. 17: 115–129.
50. A.Marušić,, L.Bošnjak, and A.Jerončić. 2011. A Systematic Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines. PLoS one 6 (September): 1-17 (e23477).
51. R.K.Merton, 1969. Behavior patterns of scientists. American Scientist 57:1–23.
52. R.K.Merton, 1973. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
53. C.A.Mirkin,, S.-J.Park, J.J.Storhoff, and T.A.Taton. 2001. Addendum. Langmuir 17:5977.
54. B.Moffatt, 2011. Responsible Authorship: Why Researchers Must Forgo Honorary Authorship. Accountability in Research 18:76–90.
55. B.Moffatt, 2013. O.PapersOrphan and Ghostwriting: The Case against the ICMJE Criterion of Authorship. Accountability in Research 20:59–71.
56. B.Myers, 2014. Eminent organic chemists videos. https://www.organicdivision.org/ama/orig/EminentOrganicChemists/link/montgomery.html. (accessed June 5, 2015).
57. S.Nadis, 1998. Suicide highlights graduate student woes. Nature 395:826.
58. National Institutes of Health (NIH). 2011. Responsible conduct of research. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html. (accessed June 5, 2015).
59. National Science Foundation. 2009a. Responsible conduct of research. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-08-20/html/E9-19930.htm. (accessed June 5, 2015).
60. National Science Foundation. 2009b. Responsible conduct of research (RCR). http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rcr.jsp. (accessed June 5, 2015).
61. J.P.Near,, and M.P.Miceli. 1995. Effective whistle-blowing. Academy of Management Review. 20: 679–708.
62. T.Reichardt, 2014. Faculty Interviews - Department of Chemistry, Princeton University: https://vimeo.com/channels/puchemfaculty. (accessed June 5, 2015).
63. D.Rennie, 1997. Commentary on “A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science”. Science and Engineering Ethics 3:257–259.
64. D.Rennie,, V.Yank, and L.Emanuel. 1997. When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. Journal of the American Medical Association. 278:579–585.
65. D.B.Resnik, 1997. A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science. Science and Engineering Ethics 3:237–243.
66. D.B.Resnik,, S.Peddada, and W.Jr. Brunson. 2009. Research misconduct policies of scientific journals. Accountability in Research. 16:254–267.
67. D.B.Resnik,, and A.E.Shamoo. 2011. The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. Accountability in Research. 18:71–75.
68. S.Ritter, 2001. Who has the right to publish? Chemical & Engineering News 79 (June 18): 40.
69. D.L.Robinson,, K.Burton-Danner, and K.Kiser. 1999. Dealing with scientific disputes involving authorship. Professional. Ethics 7: 45–58.
70. A.J.Rocke, 1988. Diversions and digressions: Koerner, Dewar and the structure of pyridine. Bulletin for the History of Chemistry. 2: 4–6.
71. A.Schneider, 1998. Harvard faces the aftermath of a graduate student’s suicide. The Chronicle of Higher Education 45: A12–A14.
72. J.Seeman,, and M.House 2011. Responsible conduct of research in academic chemistry in the United States. In: A.S.Martínez,, R.E.Sánchez,, M.C.Gamboa, (Eds), Química: Historia, Filosofía y Educación. Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, Bogotá, Colombia
73. J.I.Seeman,, and M.C.House. 2010a. Influences on authorship issues. An evaluation of giving credit. Accountability in Research. 17: 146–169.
74. J.I.Seeman,, and M.C.House. 2010b. Influences on authorship issues. An evaluation of receiving, not receiving, and rejecting credit. Accountability in research. 17: 176–197.
75. A.E.Shamoo,, and D.B.Resnik. 2015. Responsible Conduct of Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
76. S.D.Solomon, 2014. Whistle-blower awards get results, but also may lure wrongdoers. The New York Times CXVI (December 31): B3.
77. N.H.Steneck, 2007. Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
78. L.E.Sullivan,, and J.R.Ogloff. 1998. Appropriate supervisor-graduate student relationships. Ethics Behavior 8: 229–248.
79. J.P.Swazey,, M.D.Anderson, and K.S.Lewis. 1993. Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist 81:542–553.
80. S.Titus, 2015. Foreword. Accountability in Research. 22: 307–311.
81. M.Torrice,, and J.Kemsley. 2014. Patrick Harran and L.A. District Attorney Reach Deal in Sheri Sangji Case. Chemical & Engineering News 92 (June 27):4.
82. L.Wang, 2009. Eminent organic chemists videos. Chemical & Engineering News 87 (August 10): 40.
83. L.Wang, 2013. Organic Division Releases New Video Series. Chemical & Engineering News (June 24): 39.
84. White House Office of Science and Technology 2000. Federal policy on research misconduct. In http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/fed_research_misconduct-policy, accessed June 4, 2015.
85. J.Woodward,, and D.Goodstein, 1996. Conduct, Misconduct and the Structure of Science. American Scientist 84: 479–490.
86. T.Yamane, (1973). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis. New York: Harper and Row, p. 1088.
87. V.Yank,, and D.Rennie, 1999. Disclosure of Researcher Contributions: A Study of Original Research Articles in The Lancet. Annals of Internal Medicine. 130:661–670.
88. R.N.Zare, 2014. Scientific authorship: Giving credit where credit is due. Current Science 106: 1171–1172.
89. A.Zbar,, and E.Frank. 2011. Significance of authorship position: an open-ended international assessment. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences 341:106–9.