Discuss intellectual property frankly
1. Discuss intellectual property frankly
Academe’s competitive “publish-or-perish” mindset can be a recipe for trouble when it comes
to who gets credit for authorship (/gradpsych/2006/01/cover-credit) . The best way to avoid
disagreements about who should get credit and in what order is to talk about these issues at
the beginning of a working relationship, even though many people often feel uncomfortable
about such topics.
“It’s almost like talking about money,” explains Tangney. “People don’t want to appear to be
greedy or presumptuous.”
APA’s Ethics Code (/ethics/code) offers some guidance: It specifies that “faculty advisors discuss
publication credit with students as early as feasible and throughout the research and
publication process as appropriate.” When researchers and students put such understandings
in writing, they have a helpful tool to continually discuss and evaluate contributions as the
research progresses.
However, even the best plans can result in disputes, which often occur because people look
at the same situation differently. “While authorship should reflect the contribution,” says APA
Ethics Office Director Stephen Behnke, JD, PhD, “we know from social science research that
people often overvalue their contributions to a project. We frequently see that in authorshiptype situations. In many instances, both parties genuinely believe they’re right.” APA’s Ethics
Code stipulates that psychologists take credit only for work they have actually performed or to
which they have substantially contributed and that publication credit should accurately reflect
the relative contributions: “Mere possession of an institutional position, such as department
chair, does not justify authorship credit,” says the code. “Minor contributions to the research or
to the writing for publications are acknowledged appropriately, such as in footnotes or in an
introductory statement.”
The same rules apply to students. If they contribute substantively to the conceptualization,
design, execution, analysis or interpretation of the research reported, they should be listed as
authors. Contributions that are primarily technical don’t warrant authorship. In the same vein,
advisers should not expect ex-officio authorship on their students’ work.
Matthew McGue, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, says his psychology department has
instituted a procedure to avoid murky authorship issues. “We actually have a formal process
here where students make proposals for anything they do on the project,” he explains. The
process allows students and faculty to more easily talk about research responsibility,
distribution and authorship.
Psychologists should also be cognizant of situations where they have access to confidential
ideas or research, such as reviewing journal manuscripts or research grants, or hearing new
ideas during a presentation or informal conversation. While it’s unlikely reviewers can purge all
of the information in an interesting manuscript from their thinking, it’s still unethical to take
those ideas without giving credit to the originator.
“If you are a grant reviewer or a journal manuscript reviewer [who] sees someone’s research
[that] hasn’t been published yet, you owe that person a duty of confidentiality and anonymity,”
says Gerald P. Koocher, PhD, editor of the journal Ethics and Behavior and co-author of “Ethics
in Psychology: Professional Standards and Cases” (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Researchers also need to meet their ethical obligations once their research is published: If
authors learn of errors that change the interpretation of research findings, they are ethically
obligated to promptly correct the errors in a correction, retraction, erratum or by other means.
To be able to answer questions about study authenticity and allow others to reanalyze the
results, authors should archive primary data and accompanying records for at least five years,
advises University of Minnesota psychologist and researcher Matthew McGue, PhD. “Store all
your data. Don’t destroy it,” he says. “Because if someone charges that you did something
wrong, you can go back.”
“It seems simple, but this can be a tricky area,” says Susan Knapp, APA’s deputy publisher. “The
APA Publication Manual Section 8.05 has some general advice on what to retain and
suggestions about things to consider in sharing data.”
The APA Ethics Code requires psychologists to release their data to others who want to verify
their conclusions, provided that participants’ confidentiality can be protected and as long as
legal rights concerning proprietary data don’t preclude their release. However, the code also
notes that psychologists who request data in these circumstances can only use the shared
data for reanalysis; for any other use, they must obtain a prior written agreement.
1. Discuss intellectual property frankly
Academe’s competitive “publish-or-perish” mindset can be a recipe for trouble when it comes to who gets credit for authorship. The best way to avoid disagreements about who should get credit and in what order is to talk about these issues at the beginning of a working relationship, even though many people often feel uncomfortable about such topics.
“It’s almost like talking about money,” explains Tangney. “People don’t want to appear to be greedy or presumptuous.”
APA’s Ethics Code offers some guidance: It specifies that “faculty advisors discuss publication credit with students as early as feasible and throughout the research and publication process as appropriate.” When researchers and students put such understandings in writing, they have a helpful tool to continually discuss and evaluate contributions as the research progresses.
However, even the best plans can result in disputes, which often occur because people look at the same situation differently. “While authorship should reflect the contribution,” says APA Ethics Office Director Stephen Behnke, JD, PhD, “we know from social science research that people often overvalue their contributions to a project. We frequently see that in authorship-type situations. In many instances, both parties genuinely believe they’re right.” APA’s Ethics Code stipulates that psychologists take credit only for work they have actually performed or to which they have substantially contributed and that publication credit should accurately reflect the relative contributions: “Mere possession of an institutional position, such as department chair, does not justify authorship credit,” says the code. “Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publications are acknowledged appropriately, such as in footnotes or in an introductory statement.”
The same rules apply to students. If they contribute substantively to the conceptualization, design, execution, analysis or interpretation of the research reported, they should be listed as authors. Contributions that are primarily technical don’t warrant authorship. In the same vein, advisers should not expect ex-officio authorship on their students’ work.
Matthew McGue, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, says his psychology department has instituted a procedure to avoid murky authorship issues. “We actually have a formal process here where students make proposals for anything they do on the project,” he explains. The process allows students and faculty to more easily talk about research responsibility, distribution and authorship.
Psychologists should also be cognizant of situations where they have access to confidential ideas or research, such as reviewing journal manuscripts or research grants, or hearing new ideas during a presentation or informal conversation. While it’s unlikely reviewers can purge all of the information in an interesting manuscript from their thinking, it’s still unethical to take those ideas without giving credit to the originator.
“If you are a grant reviewer or a journal manuscript reviewer [who] sees someone’s research [that] hasn’t been published yet, you owe that person a duty of confidentiality and anonymity,” says Gerald P. Koocher, PhD, editor of the journal Ethics and Behavior and co-author of “Ethics in Psychology: Professional Standards and Cases” (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Researchers also need to meet their ethical obligations once their research is published: If authors learn of errors that change the interpretation of research findings, they are ethically obligated to promptly correct the errors in a correction, retraction, erratum or by other means.
To be able to answer questions about study authenticity and allow others to reanalyze the results, authors should archive primary data and accompanying records for at least five years, advises University of Minnesota psychologist and researcher Matthew McGue, PhD. “Store all your data. Don’t destroy it,” he says. “Because if someone charges that you did something wrong, you can go back.”
“It seems simple, but this can be a tricky area,” says Susan Knapp, APA’s deputy publisher. “The APA Publication Manual Section 8.05 has some general advice on what to retain and suggestions about things to consider in sharing data.”
The APA Ethics Code requires psychologists to release their data to others who want to verify their conclusions, provided that participants’ confidentiality can be protected and as long as legal rights concerning proprietary data don’t preclude their release. However, the code also notes that psychologists who request data in these circumstances can only use the shared data for reanalysis; for any other use, they must obtain a prior written agreement.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3.1 Discuss intellectual property frankly
Academe’s competitive “publish-or-perish” mindset can be a recipe for trouble when it comes
to who gets credit for authorship. The best way to avoid disagreements about who should get
credit and in what order is to talk about these issues at the beginning of a working relationship,
even though many people often feel uncomfortable about such topics. “It’s almost like talking
about money,” explains Tangney. “People don’t want to appear to be greedy or presumptuous.”
APA’s Ethics Code offers some guidance: It specifies that “faculty advisors discuss publication
credit with students as early as feasible and throughout the research and publication process as
appropriate.” When researchers and students put such understandings in writing, they have a
helpful tool to continually discuss and evaluate contributions as the research progresses.
However, even the best plans can result in disputes, which often occur because people look at the
same situation differently. “While authorship should reflect the contribution,” says APA Ethics
Office Director Stephen Behnke, JD, PhD, “we know from social science research that people
often overvalue their contributions to a project. We frequently see that in authorship-type
situations. In many instances, both parties genuinely believe they’re right.” APA’s Ethics Code
stipulates that psychologists take credit only for work they have actually performed or to which
they have substantially contributed and that publication credit should accurately reflect the
relative contributions: “Mere possession of an institutional position, such as department chair,
does not justify authorship credit,” says the code. “Minor contributions to the research or to the
writing for publications are acknowledged appropriately, such as in footnotes or in an
introductory statement.”
The same rules apply to students. If they contribute substantively to the conceptualization,
design, execution, analysis or interpretation of the research reported, they should be listed as
authors. Contributions that are primarily technical don’t warrant authorship. In the same vein,
advisers should not expect ex-officio authorship on their students’ work.
Matthew McGue, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, says his psychology department has
instituted a procedure to avoid murky authorship issues. “We actually have a formal process here
where students make proposals for anything they do on the project,” he explains. The process
allows students and faculty to more easily talk about research responsibility, distribution and
authorship.
Psychologists should also be cognizant of situations where they have access to confidential ideas
or research, such as reviewing journal manuscripts or research grants, or hearing new ideas
during a presentation or informal conversation. While it’s unlikely reviewers can purge all of the
information in an interesting manuscript from their thinking, it’s still unethical to take those ideas
without giving credit to the originator.
“If you are a grant reviewer or a journal manuscript reviewer [who] sees someone’s research
[that] hasn’t been published yet, you owe that person a duty of confidentiality and anonymity,”
says Gerald P. Koocher, PhD, editor of the journal Ethics and Behaviorand co-author of “Ethics
in Psychology: Professional Standards and Cases” (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Researchers also need to meet their ethical obligations once their research is published: If authors
learn of errors that change the interpretation of research findings, they are ethically obligated to
promptly correct the errors in a correction, retraction, and erratum or by other means.
Dr. Nilesh B. Gajjar / International Journal for Research in
Education
Vol. 2, Issue:7, July 2013
(IJRE) ISSN:2320-091X
12 Online International, Refereed (Reviewed) & Indexed Monthly Journal www.raijmr.com
RET Academy for International Journals of Multidisciplinary Research (RAIJMR)
To be able to answer questions about study authenticity and allow others to reanalyze the results,
authors should archive primary data and accompanying records for at least five years, advises
University of Minnesota psychologist and researcher Matthew McGue, PhD. “Store all your data.
Don’t destroy it,” he says. “Because if someone charges that you did something wrong, you can
go back.” “It seems simple, but this can be a tricky area,” says Susan Knapp, APA’s deputy
publisher. “The APA Publication Manual Section 8.05 has some general advice on what to retain
and suggestions about things to consider in sharing data.”
The APA Ethics Code requires psychologists to release their data to others who want to verify
their conclusions, provided that participants’ confidentiality can be protected and as long as legal
rights concerning proprietary data don’t preclude their release. However, the code also notes that
psychologists who request data in these circumstances can only use the shared data for
reanalysis; for
Image preview for discuss intellectual property frankly
APA
846 words