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 ones 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