Honoring god through scientific research: Navigating the ethics of publishing with our students

International Journal of Christianity and Education

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 133-148

  Kendall, Dana L ^a   Campanario, Scott C ^a  

^a SEATTLE PACIFIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Academia; Christianity; Mentoring; Publishing; Research ethics; Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 85044077779     PISSN: 20569971     EISSN: 2056998X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2056997116637878     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Alvarez B, Bonnet JL and Kahn M (2014) Publish, not perish: Supporting graduate students as aspiring authors. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 2(3): eP1141.
2. Anderson MS, Martinson BC and De Vries R (2007) Normative dissonance in science: Results from a national survey of U.S. sciences. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2(4): 3–14.
3. Anderson MS, Ronning EA, DeVries R and Martinson BC (2010) Extending the Mertonian norms: Scientists’ subscription to norms of research. Journal of Higher Education 81(3): 366–393.
4. Bedeian AG, Taylor SG and Miller AN (2010) Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning and Education 9(4): 715–725.
5. Bennethum DM (2003) Listen, God is Calling: Luther Speaks of Vocation, Faith and Work. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress.
6. Carson L, Bartneck C and Voges K (2012) Over-competitiveness in academia: A literature review. Disruptive Science and Technology 1(4): 183–190.
7. Cortina JM and Folger RG (1998) When is it acceptable to accept a null hypothesis: No way, Jose? Organizational Research Methods 1(3): 334–350.
8. Crane NJ and Pearson Z (2011) Can we get a pub from this? Reflections on competition and the pressure to publish while in graduate school. The Geographical Bulletin 52(2): 77–80.
9. Day NE (2011) The silent majority: Manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars. Academy of Management Learning and Education 10(4): 704–718.
10. Fanelli D (2010) ‘‘Positive’’ results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE 5(4): e10068.
11. Fromson PM (2006) Evoking shame and guilt: A comparison of two theories. Psychological Reports 98(1): 99–105.
12. Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA and Kitas GD (2015) Rewarding peer reviewers: Maintaining the integrity of science communication. Journal of Korean Medical Sciences 30(4): 360–364.
13. Giner-Sorolla R (2012) Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(6): 562–571.
14. Greenwald AG (1975) Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin 82(1): 1–20.
15. Grossetti M, Eckert D, Gingras Y, Jégou L, Larivière V and Milard B (2013) Cities and the geographical deconcentration of scientific activity: A multilevel analysis of publications (1987–2007). Urban Studies 51(10): 2219–2234.
16. Higgins ET (1987) Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review 94(3): 319–340.
17. Horn SA (2015) The social and psychological costs of peer review: Stress and coping with manuscript rejection. Journal of Management Inquiry, Epub ahead of print 19 May 2015. DOI: 10.1177/1056492615586597.
18. Horton M (2014) Calvin on the Christian Life: Glorifying and Enjoying God Forever. Wheaton: Crossway.
19. Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2(8): 696–701.
20. Ioannidis JPA (2012) Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(6): 645–654.
21. Keller T (2013) Every Good Endeavor: Connecting Your Work to God’s Work. New York: Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
22. Kepes S and McDaniel MA (2013) How trustworthy is the scientific literature in industrial and organizational psychology? Industrial and Organizational Psychology 6(3): 252–268.
23. Kerr NL (1998) HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2(3): 196–217.
24. Landis RS and Rogelberg SG (2013) Our scholarly practices are derailing our progress: The importance of ‘‘nothing’’ in the organizational sciences. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 6(3): 299–302.
25. Laws KR (2013) Negativland – a home for all findings in psychology. BioMedCentral Psychology 1(2): 1–8.
26. Lesser LI, Ebbeling CB, Goozner M, Wypij D and Ludwig DS (2007) Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Medicine 4(1): 41–46.
27. Luther M (2006) In: McCain PT and Rathmann RL (eds) Luther’s Large Catechism with Study Questions. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
28. Martin J (2010) The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything. New York: HarperCollins.
29. Mazzola JJ and Deuling JK (2013) Forgetting what we learned as graduate students: HARKing and selective outcomes reporting in I-O journal articles. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 6(3): 279–284.
30. Miller AN, Taylor SG and Bedeian AG (2011) Publish or perish: Academic life as management faculty live it. Career Development International 16(5): 422–445.
31. Murayama K, Pekrun R and Fiedler K (2013) Research practices that can prevent an inflation of false-positive rates. Personality and Social Psychology Review 18(2): 107–118.
32. Neuliep JW and Crandall R (1990) Editorial bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 5(4): 85–90.
33. Neuliep JW and Crandall R (1993) Reviewer bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 8(6): 21–29.
34. The New Yorker (2010) The truth wears off. Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off (accessed 29 June 2015).
35. Nosek BA and Bar-Anan Y (2012) Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry 23(3): 217–243.
36. O’Malley JW (1993) The First Jesuits. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
37. Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251): 943–951.
38. Osherovich (2011) Hedging against academic risk. Science-Business eXchange 4(15): 1–2.
39. Pachter WS, Fox RE, Zimbardo P and Antonuccio DO (2007) Corporate funding and conflicts of interest: A primer for psychologists. American Psychologist 62(9): 1005–1015.
40. PLoS Collections (2015) Positively negative: A new PLoS ONE collection focusing on negative, null and inconclusive results. In: PLoS blogs. Available at: http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2015/02/25/positively-negative-new-plos-one-collection-focusing-negative-null-inconclusive-results (accessed 18 September 2015).
41. Rittgers RK (2012) The Reformation of Suffering: Pastoral Theology and Lay Piety in Late Medieval and Early Modern Germany. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press.
42. Shadish WR, Cook TD and Campbell DT (2002) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
43. Sharp RR and Yarborough M (2006) Informed trust and the financing of biomedical research. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34(2): 460–464.
44. Simmons JP, Nelson LD and Simonsohn U (2011) False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22(11): 1359–1366.
45. Smith R (2006) Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99(4): 178–182.
46. Stanley DJ and Spence JR (2014) Expectations for replications: Are yours realistic? Perspectives on Psychological Science 9(3): 305–318.
47. Suls J and Martin R (2009) The air we breathe: A critical look at practices and alternatives in the peer-review process. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4(1): 40–50.
48. Tajfel H and Turner JC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austing WG and Worchel S (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monteray: Brooks-Cole, pp. 33–47.
49. Tavris C and Aronson E (2008) Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
50. The Washington Post (2012) As drug industry’s influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-drug-industrys-influence-over-research-grows-so-does-the-potential-for-bias/2012/11/24/bb64d596-1264-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html (accessed 28 September 2015).
51. Tijdink JK, Vergouwen ACM and Smulders YM (2013) Publication pressure and burn out among Dutch medical professors: A nationwide survey. PLoS ONE 8(9): 1–6.
52. Titus SL and Ballou JM (2014) Ensuring PhD development of responsible conduct of research behaviors: Who’s responsible? Science and Engineering Ethics 20(1): 221–235.
53. Tsang JA (2002) Moral rationalization and the integration of situational factors and psychological processes in immoral behavior. Review of General Psychology 6(1): 25–50.