Can Multiple Authorship Reduce Scientific Misconduct?

1. Can Multiple Authorship Reduce Scientific Misconduct? Sheldon R. Gelman, PhD Yeshiva University Wurzweiler School of Social Work New York, New York 2006 ORI Research on Research Integrity Conference December, 2006 Tampa, Florida

2. Table 1: Institutions Reporting Misconduct Activities to ORI (1996-2005)

3. Table 2: Types of Misconduct Reported to ORI (1996-2005)

4. “Scientific Misconduct is ethically unacceptable behavior that undermines the integrity of the research, that is, it calls into question the validity of the research.” (ORI, 2000)

5. Plagiarism Is A Form Of Scientific Misconduct • Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results, (Definition proposed by White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1999). • Research misconduct is not: “honest error or honest differences of opinion”. • Ryan (1996) offered that scientific misconduct is “significant misbehavior that improperly appropriates intellectual property or contributions of others, that intentionally impedes the progress of research, or that risks corrupting the scientific record by compromising the integrity or scientific practice.

6. Plagiarism: The appropriation of the language, ideas, or thoughts of another and representing them as one’s own original work (ORI, 2000)

7. Fabrication and Falsification are Fiction Not Science (ORI, 2004)

8. Falsification of Data: Ranges from fabrication to deceptive or selective reporting of findings and/or omission of conflicting data, or willful suppression and/or distortion of data (ORI, 2000)

9. Falsification and Fabrication may also involve credentials, including degrees and publications.

10. One-third of (3000) scientist acknowledged that they had committed some form of research misbehavior. (Guterman, 2006 – Chronicle of Higher Education)

11. Table 3: Plagiarism * Behavioral scientist

12. Continuation Of Table 3 * * Behavioral scientist

13. Continuation Of Table 3 * * Behavioral scientist

14. Table 4: Falsification/Fabrication * Behavioral scientist

15. Continuation Of Table 4 * Behavioral scientist

16. Continuation Of Table 4 * Behavioral scientist

17. Continuation Of Table 4 * * Behavioral scientist

18. Continuation Of Table 4 * * Behavioral scientist

19. Continuation Of Table 4 * Behavioral scientist

20. Data Sources for Cases • Chronicle of Higher Education • New York Times • Washington Post • Lexis-Nexis • ProQuest • ORI Reports and Publications (Full citations for cases are provided in the formal paper)

21. Possible Explanations • Psychological Factors • Predisposition or propensity toward wrongdoing personality characteristics (status, power, entitlement) • Environmental • Pressure (Competition for funding/publication expectations) • Culture • Opportunity (ease/lack of oversight) • Calculating risk of detection • Consequences

22. While there are serious adverse consequences to some individuals who face allegations of FFP which have included loss of position, incarceration and death (suicide), most demonstrate a general lack of remorse. • Being found guilty does not necessarily end ones career.

23. Longevity in an academic career is directly linked to the tenure system and the granting of tenure, in most institutions of higher education, depends on publishing. (Berger, 1990)

24. The emphasis on scholarly productivity has brought with it the concomitant obligation to conduct research. (Gibelman & Gelman, 2000)

25. In the United States the emphasis on scholarly production appears to have contributed to an increase in collaboration among faculty members, resulting in an increase in multiple authored publications. (Gibelman and Gelman, 1999a; 1999b; 2000)

26. Table 5: Trends in Authorship

27. Benefits of Collaborations and Multiple Authorship: • Creates a system of checks and balances among collaborators that may help ensure research integrity. • The quality of the product may be increased because of complimentary expertise, integration of multiple perspectives, intellectual exchange, cross-editing, and oversight. • Provides an opportunity for the development of a mentoring relationship.

28. Mentoring can be viewed as an exercise in accountability and contribute to responsible research conduct.

29. Mentoring provides input to and oversight of research activity and creates a process through which responsible research conduct can be modeled.

30. Prevention Strategies