good scientific practice...scientific misconduct scientific misconduct occurs, „[…] when false...

KLINIKUM DER UNIVERSITÄT MÜNCHEN®DEKANAT DER MEDIZINISCHEN FAKULTÄT

Munich Medical Research School (MMRS)

DEKANAT

Good Scientific Practice

Authorship and Publications

Dr. Antje Hentrich

Presentation modified from Gunther Löfflmann



DEKANAT

Content

Case: Authorship

Authorship criteria

Facts and figures

Examples

Sources



DEKANAT



DEKANAT

Storry time



DEKANAT

Dr. Conway is a tenured associate professor of biochemistry at a

large research institution. His research group consists primarilyof graduate students. Since Conway likes to see work in

progress, he requires all of his students to participate in

individual meetings as well as group meetings with him every

week. He insists on seeing each piece of data and working

through the projects with his students.

Elizabeth is a second year graduate student in the biochemistrydepartment, and Conway is her thesis research adviser. Elizabethhas recently completed the majority of the coursework that isrequired by her program and is becoming more involved in herthesis project. Her research focuses on purifying a novel proteincomplex from mammalian cells and testing its effect on theregulation of a specific cell cycle gene. Although she hascompleted only a few experiments, some of her initial data lookpromising.

Conway has not published a manuscript in more than a year.

Sensing that many of his peers are making progress in areas

related to his own, he is feeling pressure to extend his

publication record, in order to remain competitive in their field of

research. In order to remedy his current situation, he decides to

begin writing a manuscript that includes some of Elizabeth's

data. He is aware that many of the experiments have not yet been

reproduced or are still in the process of being repeated. He

meets frequently with Elizabeth about her progress, and they go

over all of her data regularly. Based on this involvement, there islittle chance that he could have been misled about thepreliminary status of the work.

On a recent occasion, he asked Elizabeth if he could look through

her notebook, because he would like to evaluate and think about

her data. Elizabeth willingly gave him her notebook. Conway

finished writing and putting together the figures, and he

submitted a manuscript for publication without telling Elizabeth.

Conway listed Elizabeth as first author on the paper and himself

as the second and final author. He submitted to the journal

Molecular and Cellular Biology and recommended an editor who

has been a personal and professional friend of his for many

years.

When Elizabeth realizes that her adviser has submitted a paperwith her name on it without her consent, she is very upset withhim. If any of the data turn out to be erroneous, her scientificcareer could be damaged. She has just begun her involvement ina research environment, and she is unsure about how to react orif she should do anything at all. She tries to convince herself thatmaybe this is the way things are done. She has been working inConway's lab for only a short time, and she is not verycomfortable with him yet. She wonders if she should talk withsome of the other graduate students about what has happened,hoping that they can help her deal with the situation.

Source: Graduate Research Ethics: Cases and Commentaries - Volume 6, 2002 edited by Brian Schrag

Elizabeth‘ dilemma



DEKANAT

Discussion Questions:

Who, if anyone, should Elizabeth talk with about the possible publication of very preliminary experiments? Fellow students? The department head?

Should she just forget about the manuscript submission for now and work on trying to reproduce the experiments that were included?

What requirements need to be fulfilled to become an author of a paper?

Pretending that in addition the publication would be “authored” by the Department Head and a Technician: How responsible is the professor for the paper, how responsible is Elizabeth, the Dean and the Tech?

At this stage in her graduate career, what complications might Elizabeth face if she changed research advisers?

Elizabeth‘ dilemma

Source: Graduate Research Ethics: Cases and Commentaries - Volume 6, 2002 edited by Brian Schrag



DEKANAT

Curriculum

• Misconduct

• Data Handling

• Publication process & Authorship

Collective responsibility of ALL authors

• Publication content

• True/correct data

• Originality

• Reproducibility

• Data security

• True/correct citation

Authorship criteria



DEKANAT

Authorship criteria

Source: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#two

The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

1. Substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of the data for work AND

2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual contributions

3. Final approval of the version to be published, AND

4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved

http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#two



DEKANAT

Concept

PlanningOR Execution

Writing of

ManuscriptOR

Critical

Revision

AND

AND

Agreement Responsibility

Authorship criteria

Source: H. Nolte, Institut für systemische Medizin- und Organisationsethik



DEKANAT

Not:Organizational Responsibility for FundingMaterial ContributionTechnical ContributionMethod – InstructionInstitution/Department LeadProofreading

Authorship criteria


Concept


Writing of

ManuscriptOR

Critical

Revision

AND

AND




DEKANAT

Curriculum

• Misconduct

• Data Handling

• Publication process & Authorship

• ResponsibilitySupervisor | Supervised

TA

C

Authorship criteria


Concept


Writing of

ManuscriptOR

Critical

Revision

AND

AND




DEKANAT

Position of authors – the struggle…

First author (most of the work, most important for the project)

Shared first (two scientists who contributed equally but more than anybody

else)

Last author (leading scientist, PI / Professor/ head of the lab)

Shared last (two labs contributed equally to the project, both PIs want

equal credit)

Corresponding author (who to contact, mostly PI, sometimes the first

author)

Middle: according to importance or alphabetically

All authors alphabetically (physics & chemistry), especially in large

research syndicates (e.g. for the Synchrotron)

Discuss the list of authors with your colleagues early on

Arrange authorships when you set out to write at the latest



DEKANAT

What a list of authors can tell us…



DEKANAT

Conclusion

Communication about authors list at an early stage is essential!

There is no „free seat“ on a paper- it always comes with responsibilities

Peer review in renowned journals can also fail ( retraction watch)



DEKANAT

Good Scientific Practice

Plagiarism & Citation



DEKANAT

Content

Scientific misconduct

Plagiarism - definitions

Types of plagiarism, examples

Citation - definition & examples

Citation styles & conventions (& examples)

Juristic aspects



DEKANAT

Esther Silvana Koch-Merin

Annette Schavan

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg

Dr. Ursula von der LeyenImages source: wikipedia.de

Sadly famous cases…



DEKANAT

Scientific misconduct

Scientific misconduct occurs, „[…] when false information is presented awarely

or negligently, intellectual property is infringed or others´ research activity is

impaired in a scientifically relevant context. Individual circumstances are

crucial in each case.“

In our context, that means especially

inadequate referencing

manipulation of illustrations/figures

pretense of authorship

purchase of texts, Ghostwriting (≠plagiarism)

Source: DFG Verfahrensleitfaden 2016, Translation GL



DEKANAT

Plagiarism - definitions

Duden: „unlawful appropriation of thoughts, ideas or comparable and its

publication in the artistic or scientific field”

Teddi Fishman: “Plagiarism occurs when someone:

1. uses words, ideas, or work products attributable to another identifiable

person or source

2. without attributing the work to the source from which it was obtained

3. in a situation in which there is a legitimate expectation of original

authorship

4. in order to obtain some benefit, credit, or gain which need not be

monetary”

Note: regardless if that happens unknowingly or unintentionally!

Source: Duden 2017, Translation GLwww.bmartin.cc/pubs/09-4apcei/4apcei-Fishman.pdf

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/09-4apcei/4apcei-Fishman.pdf



DEKANAT

Plagiarism - types and examples

Complete plagiarism: 1:1 copy of a whole text

Partial plagiarism: copy of certain text passages

Verbal plagiarism: copy of certain phrases

Idea plagiarism: copy of another author´s idea or thoughts, but written in own words (paraphrased, hard to identify)

Translation plagiarism: word-for-word translation of foreign-language literature

Self-plagiarism: copy of oneself´s scientific text (self-plagiarism is no unauthorised use of thoughts or works of others, but makes the recipient think reading something unpublished, which is critical especially concerning cumulative thesis)

Keep in mind: everything that has been published has to be cited!

Source: http://plagiat.htw-berlin.de/ff/startseite/fremde_federn_finden , Translation GL

http://plagiat.htw-berlin.de/ff/startseite/fremde_federn_finden



DEKANAT

Complete plagiarism

Thesis, 2003 Thesis, 2004



DEKANAT

Partial plagiarism

Stem Cells Journal, 2002 Thesis, 2006

Partial plagiarism: copy of certain text passages



DEKANAT

Verbal plagiarism

www.drugline.org

Thesis, 2006

www.sciencedirect.com

Verbal plagiarism: copy of certain phrases



DEKANAT

Idea plagiarism/Paraphrase (+ partial plagiarism)

Thesis, 2001 Thesis, 2004

Idea plagiarism: copy of another author´s idea or thoughts, but written in own words (paraphrased, hard to identify)



DEKANAT

Translation plagiarism

constitutionproject.org, 1999 Thesis, 2009

Insgesamt gedieh, besser glückte die Selbstverpflichtung zum "self-restraint" in den ersten zwei Jahrhunderten nach dem Gründungsakt. Obwohl in diesem Zeitraum mehr als 11.000 Amendment-Vorschläge für die Verfassung in den Kongress eingebracht wurden, vereinten lediglich 33 die erforderlichen Kongressmehrheiten auf sich, wovon letztlich nur die benannten 27 auch von den Staaten ratifiziert wurden. Die nach allgemeiner Ansicht bedeutsamsten Amendments, etwa die Hälfte, entstammen zwei bahnbrechenden Perioden amerikanischer Geschichte -dem Zeitraum der Verfassungsschöpfung, die 1791 ihre Vollendung mit der Bill of Rights gefunden hatte, sowie der umwälzenden Phase des Bürgerkrieges, die Ausschlag für die sogenannten "Reconstruction Amendments": Dies sind das 13. (1865), 14. (1868) und 15. Amendment(1870). Siehe auch A. Avins, The ReconstructionAmendemnts' Debates. The Legislative History andContemporary Debates in Congress on the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, 1967. Zu den Schwierigkeiten im Zusammenhang mit dem 14. Amendment J. E. Bond, NoEasy Walk to Freedom. Reconstruction and theRatification of the Fourteenth Amendment, 1997. Daneben bleiben lediglich dreizehn „sonstige“ Amendments der Verfassung, die größtenteils dazu dienten, entweder das Wahlrecht auszuweiten oder die Amtszeit des Präsidenten zu regulieren. Vier Amendmentsblieb es vorbehalten, höchstrichterliche Entscheidungen de facto aufzuheben.

Translation plagiarism: word-for-word translation of foreign-language literature



DEKANAT

Self plagiarism – is also plagiarism

German Research Foundation states in their “Proposal to ensure good

scientific conduct” that:

Your own preparatory work has to be cited entirely and correctly

Results that have been published previously should only be used when

labeled clearly as such and should only be repeated to the extend

necessary

Guidelines of German Governmental Law Teachers:

It is bad scientific conduct, to publish your own published work lateron

mainly unchanged without a reference to their original publication, so they

appear to be new publication



DEKANAT

Self plagiarism

Labeling is key:

e.g.: the following chapter has been part of my publication: ……

The following table has previously been published in:…..

If you thesis is mostly based on one previously published paper, include a

paragraph to explain your contribution and point out what others

contributed (like it is custom in a cumulative thesis)



DEKANAT

iThenticate helps

2 submissions by the supervisor

Please send only the main body of your thesis (no cover page, no table of

content, no acknowledgements, no affidavit, etc.)

Do not delete figure legends, tables and table legends

The percentile does not tell you all – but it‘s a hint!



DEKANAT

Citation - definition & examples

Why: to show who is author of the relevant parts/thoughts/findings

Direct quote: „literally reproduced statement“(Duden, 2017)

ellipses, highlightings, supplements etc. possible, but have to be marked

Indirect quote: according to Duden (2017), a citation is characterized by

literal reproduction of another person´s statement

Citation of secondary sources: Müller (2015), as given in Meier (2016)

Citation of figures: exact copy, no changes allowed

Adaption: cite source of original and make adaption clear

Specific knowledge: 1+1=2 (in doubt contact your supervisor)

Provide the source, no matter if something is cited, translated (by you) or

adapted!

Please check upcomingguides for details!



DEKANAT

Citation styles & conventions forthesis

Harvard-Convention/APA

Author and year of publication given within continuous text

Page number optional

Example: (Mustermann, 2016); (Musterfrau et al., 2017)

Vancouver-Convention/IEEE

Consecutive numbers given within continuous text

One source always has the same number

Example: [17]; [17, 19, 21-23] optional: 17, 19, 21-23

The reference list should be arranged according to the citation style chosen

It´s helpful to use software like Citavi, Endnote, Papers, etc.

Please check special criteria of journals when publishing!



DEKANAT

styles & conventionsfor publications (examples)



DEKANAT

Juristic aspects I

UrhG §51 – Zitat (Citations)

„It shall be permissible to reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public a published

work for the purpose of quotation so far as such use is justified to that extent by the particular

purpose. This shall be permissible in particular where

1. subsequent to publication individual works are included in an independent scientific work

for the purpose of explaining the contents,

2. subsequent to publication passages from a work are quoted in an independent work of

language,

3. individual passages from a released musical work are quoted in an independent musical

work.

The authorization to quote under the first and second sentences includes the use of an

illustration or other reproduction of the cited work, even if this is itself protected by copyright

or a related right.”

Source: www.gesetze-im-internet.de

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/



DEKANAT

Juristic aspects II

§ 106 UrhG – Unerlaubte Verwertung urheberrechtlich geschützter Werke

(unauthorized exploitation of copyrighted works): imprisonment of up to 3

years or fine, attempt liable to prosecution

§ 156 StGB – Falsche Versicherung an Eides Statt (false sworn affidavit):

imprisonment of up to 3 years or fine

§ 263 StGB – Betrug (Fraud): imprisonment of up to 5 years or fine, attempt

liable to prosecution

Plagiarism in scientific context is not the same as copying your homework at

school, it is infringement of an official duty according to the Bavarian

University Act (Article 6 (1) 3 BayHSchG)

Source: www.gesetze-im-internet.de

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/



DEKANAT

Thank you for your attention!



DEKANAT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_open-access_publishing

http://wame.org/identifying-predatory-or-pseudo-journals

http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Principles_of_Transparency_and_Bes

t_Practice_in_Scholarly_Publishing.

https://predatoryjournals.com/publishers/

https://www.qoam.eu/

https://doaj.org/

http://thinkchecksubmit.org/translations/german/

https://retractionwatch.com/

Sources/weblinks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_open-access_publishing

http://wame.org/identifying-predatory-or-pseudo-journals

http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Principles_of_Transparency_and_Best_Practice_in_Scholarly_Publishing

https://predatoryjournals.com/publishers/

https://www.qoam.eu/

https://doaj.org/

http://thinkchecksubmit.org/translations/german/

https://retractionwatch.com/

good scientific practice...scientific misconduct scientific misconduct occurs, „[…] when false...

Documents