Ethical principles associated with the publication of research in ASHA's scholarly journals: importance and adequacy of coverage

Research ethics III: Publication practices and authorship, conflicts of interest, and research misconduct

PURPOSE

In this series of articles--Research Ethics I, Research Ethics II, and Research Ethics III--the authors provide a comprehensive review of the 9 core domains for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as articulated by the Office of Research Integrity.

METHOD

In Research Ethics III, they review the RCR domains of publication practices and authorship, conflicts of interest, and research misconduct. Whereas the legal definition of research misconduct under federal law pertains mainly to intentional falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism, they discuss a host of research practices that raise ethical concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

The integrity of the scientific record--its accuracy, completeness, and value--ultimately impacts the health and well-being of society. For this reason, scientists are both entrusted and obligated to use the highest standards possible when proposing, performing, reviewing, and reporting research or when educating and mentoring new investigators.

Responsible conduct of research in communication sciences and disorders: faculty and student perceptions

PURPOSE

Two Web-based surveys (Surveys I and II) were used to assess perceptions of faculty and students in Communication Sciences and Disorders (CSD) regarding the responsible conduct of research (RCR).

METHOD

Survey questions addressed 9 RCR domains thought important to the responsible conduct of research: (a) human subjects protections; (b) research involving animals; (c) publication practices and responsible authorship; (d) mentor/trainee responsibilities; (e) collaborative science; (f) peer review; (g) data acquisition, management, sharing, and ownership; (h) conflicts of interest; and (i) research misconduct. Respondents rated each of 37 topics for importance and for sufficiency of instructional coverage.

RESULTS

Respondents to Survey I were 137 faculty members from 68 (26%) of the 261 graduate programs in CSD. By comparison, 237 students from 39 (15%) programs responded to Survey II. Data about the importance and sufficiency of coverage of each of the 37 items were transformed into z scores to reveal relative ratings among the 37 topics. Data presentations were grouped for topics in each of the 9 RCR domains. Ratings indicated the relatively high importance assigned among the 37 topics by CSD faculty and students. Sufficiency of coverage of those same topics received lower ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of these surveys support the notion that students in CSD perceive that they are receiving information about RCR. The data pertaining to sufficiency of coverage provide a basis for improving instruction in this important aspect of research education.