Authorship, Publication, and Peer Review

Cheryl PriceAdam Worrall

Authorship

• Who gets credit for research?– Questions about methods, data, results– Worth of researcher

• Those “who make significant contributions” (Steneck, 2007, p. 134)– Conception and design– Data collection– Data interpretation and analysis– Drafting of publication– Approving of final version of publication

2Responsible Conduct of Research and Creativity4/1/2010

What constitutes authorship?

• Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals– International Committee of Medical Journal

Editors (ICMJE)– Contribution to one or more of• Conception and design• Data collection• Data analysis and interpretation

3Responsible Conduct of Research and Creativity4/1/2010

What constitutes authorship?

• Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals– However, must also• Help draft / revise article• Approve it to be published

– Lesser contributions: acknowledgements– Not uniformly followed across disciplines,

journals

Responsible Conduct of Research and Creativity 44/1/2010

Order of authors

• Listed in order of importance• ICMJE (as cited in Steneck, 2007, p. 136)

– Order “should be a joint decision”– “Authors should be prepared to explain the order

in which authors are listed”

• “Corresponding” or “primary” author– Responsible for accuracy, ethics of author list, final

approval of article, handling all correspondence

5Responsible Conduct of Research and Creativity4/1/2010

Publication

• Authors should not engage in– Salami publication• Splitting one “significant piece of research” into

multiple papers (Steneck, 2007, p. 141)

– Duplicate publication• Publishing something a second time without

acknowledging the first publication

– Multiple submissions (in most fields)– Premature public statements about unreviewed

work4/1/2010 Responsible Conduct of Research and Creativity 6

Publication

• Editors should– Make publication decisions in a timely manner– Check for plagiarism– Have open communication with authors and

reviewers– Preserve confidentiality during review process– Be unbiased and have no conflicts of interest

4/1/2010 Responsible Conduct of Research and Creativity 7

What is peer review?

• Peer review is academia’s way of self-regulating

• Researchers and scholars are asked to evaluate each other’s work—usually anonymously

• Decisions about hiring, tenure, funding, publication, and research quality are made through peer review.

A good peer reviewer is someone who:

• Is unbiased• Is an expert in the field• Has no conflicts of interest• Can complete the review in a timely manner• Will preserve confidentiality• Won’t plagiarize ideas• (These are great rules for evaluating student

papers too!)

Types of Peer Review

• Journal manuscripts• Book manuscripts• Grant applications• Annotations• Bibliographies/Research reviews• Book Reviews• Letters of Recommendation (tenure)

Case study #1—Authorship• Dr. Abigail Phillips– Assistant professor– Tenure review soon– Communication

• Dr. Brian Quinn– Full professor– Biomedical sciences

Responsible Conduct of Research and Creativity 11

– Collaborating on interdisciplinary, mixed-method project – Dr. Phillips is the PI– Collaborated on a previous successful project

4/1/2010

Case study #1—Authorship

• Two graduate students

– Candace Reed• Biomedical sciences• Cleaned quantitative data

– David Suzuki• Communication• Helped design study• Helped conduct qualitative interviews

Responsible Conduct of Research and Creativity 124/1/2010

Case study #1: Scene 1

• Dr. Phillips starting to write up results– Publish before her tenure review– David helping to write manuscript– Already arranged he will be the third

author

• Candace e-mails Dr. Phillips

Responsible Conduct of Research and Creativity 13

Dr. Phillips, I wanted to make sure that you will include me as an author on the manuscript you are writing. As you know, I have contributed by cleaning the data that was collected from the surveys. Please be sure to include my middle initial (B) as well. Thank you.

4/1/2010

Questions for discussion

• On the face of it, are Candace’s e-mail and request reasonable?

• What considerations should Dr. Phillips take into account here?

Responsible Conduct of Research and Creativity 144/1/2010

Case study #1: Scene 2

• Dr. Phillips decides to discuss the matter with Dr. Quinn

Responsible Conduct of Research and Creativity 154/1/2010

Questions for discussion

• Did Dr. Quinn provide responsible and ethical advice? Why or why not?

• Would placing Candace as fourth author be fair to David?

• Suppose you are a faculty member in communication and Dr. Phillips asked you for advice. What would you tell her to help her resolve this problem?

• What could have been done to prevent this problem from happening?

Responsible Conduct of Research and Creativity 164/1/2010

Case Study #2—Peer Review• Dr. Quinn:• Gets more essays to peer

review than he has time for

• Lets his doctoral students do some reviews

• Asks Candace to help him out

• Candace:• Very excited at the

opportunity• Even though it is an

anonymous review, she thinks that the paper is by Dr. Jones

Dr. Brian Quinn:

• Gets more essays to peer review than he has time for• Allows his doctoral students to do some reviews• Asks Candace to help him out

Dr. Brian Quinn:

• Gets more essays to peer review than he has time for• Allows his doctoral students to do some reviews• Asks Candace to help him out

Candace Reed:

• Very excited at the opportunity• Even though it is an anonymous review, she thinks that the paper is by Dr. Jones

Candace Reed:

• Very excited at the opportunity• Even though it is an anonymous review, she thinks that the paper is by Dr. Jones

Candace:• tells Dr. Quinn she thinks

the paper is by Dr. Jones• Dr. Jones gave her a hard

time during her thesis defense

• wants to make sure there is no conflict of interest

Dr. Quinn:• is very busy• reminds Candace that it is a

blind review• tells her that there is no

conflict of interest

• Candace sees a problem with the paper’s methodology. • She recommends rejection. • Dr. Quinn signs off on the review without making any changes.

• Candace sees a problem with the paper’s methodology. • She recommends rejection. • Dr. Quinn signs off on the review without making any changes.

The other reviewer:

Thinks the manuscript has real meritRecommends a revise and resubmit

The other reviewer:

Thinks the manuscript has real meritRecommends a revise and resubmit

The editor:

Shocked at the harsh review from Dr. QuinnRejects the paper based on Dr. Quinn’s review

The editor:

Shocked at the harsh review from Dr. QuinnRejects the paper based on Dr. Quinn’s review

Questions for discussion• Should Dr. Quinn allow his graduate students to

review essays?• Once Candace thought she identified the author

of the paper as Dr. Jones, did she have a conflict of interest?

• What issues occurred during her conversation with her mentor?

• Did Candace write an unbiased review?• Should the editor have rejected the manuscript

based on Dr. Quinn’s reputation?

Thank youfor your participation!