rose & fischer 1998 do authorship policies impact students judgments of perceived wrongdoing

8/18/2019 Rose & Fischer 1998 Do Authorship Policies Impact Students Judgments of Perceived Wrongdoing

1/22

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hebh20

Download by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] Date: 12 April 2016, At: 08:53

Ethics & Behavior

ISSN: 1050-8422 (Print) 1532-7019 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hebh20

Do Authorship Policies Impact Students' Judgments of Perceived Wrongdoing?

Mary R. Rose & Karla Fischer

To cite this article: Mary R. Rose & Karla Fischer (1998) Do Authorship Policies Impact

Students' Judgments of Perceived Wrongdoing?, Ethics & Behavior, 8:1, 59-79, DOI: 10.1207/s15327019eb0801_5

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0801_5

Published online: 08 Jan 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 30

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1207/s15327019eb0801_5#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1207/s15327019eb0801_5#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1207/s15327019eb0801_5http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1207/s15327019eb0801_5http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=hebh20&page=instructionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=hebh20&page=instructionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0801_5http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1207/s15327019eb0801_5http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1207/s15327019eb0801_5http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hebh20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hebh20


2/22

ETHICS BEHAVIOR, 8(1),

59-79

CopyrightO

1998

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.

Do Authorship Policies Impact

Students' Judgments of

Perceived Wrongdoing?

Mary

R

Rose

and Karla

Fischer

epartment of Psychology

uke University

Although authorship policies exist, researchers understand little about their impact

on perceptions of authorship scenarios. Graduate students N = 277) at a large

university read

1

of 3 vignettes about a graduate student-faculty collaboration. One

half of the surveys included the American Psychological Association's statement on

authorship. Participants rated (a) the ethics of the professor

s

first author and (b) the

likelihood of a dissatisfied student reporting the authorship result,

s

well as the

effectiveness and negative consequences of reporting. Work arrangements on the

project had a consistent main effect. Also, an authorship policy impacted women's

ratings of first authorship when the student contributed the idea for a project. For men,

a policy impacted only ratings of the likelihood of reporting when a professor was

first author on a student's dissertation. Apart from sex, no other demographic

variables on participants were predictive. Discussion focuses on the policy's potential

for making only some specific issues salient.

Key words: publication ethics, authorship

Since

1993,

two separate lawsuits have centered on disputes over credit for

academic work. Two junior researchers-a psychologist and an epidemiolo-

gist-each won million dollar lawsuits at

jury

trials, arguing among other things

that their work had been used in grant applications without crediting them (Hilts,

1993;Taubes, 1995 . These type of legal actions suggest that, in some instances,

conflicts over credit for academic work can escalate into potentially serious and

costly episodes. Even less high-profile disputes over authorship can

be

extremely

difficult to resolve, as they may involve accusations about theft of highly

Reprint requests should be sent to Karla Fischer, Department of Psychology: Social Health

Sciences, Box

90085

Duke University, Durham,

NC 2 7 7 0 8 4 8 5 .

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ b

- o n : B i b l i o t e c a d o c o n h e c i

m e n t o o n l i n e U A C ] a t 0 8 : 5

3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


3/22

60

ROSE

ND

FlSCHER

intangible commodities, be they ideas for research or credit for numerous types of

labor on a project.

To combat difficulties in authorship determinations, a number of professional

societies and journals have developed policies. A recent survey of scientific

professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association

(APA), indicated that 55% had some statement on authorship (Council of Scientific

Society Presidents, 1995). Codifying authorship standards seems especially impor-

tant when collaborations involve both junior and senior researchers. Allocating

credit for student-faculty manuscripts has been identified as an important ethical

issue for supervisors (Goodyear, Crego, Johnston, 1992). In addition, some have

offered proposals for revised systems of determining publication credit, in which

differences in status and experience would be considered (Fine Kurdek, 1993).

Nevertheless, there is very little research on how influential authorship guidelines

might be, especially with respect to trainees.

Guidelines might influence pertinent authorship issues in a number of ways. For

instance, a policy may standardize both junior and senior researchers' expectations

for what level of work merits publication credit, potentially creating consistency

across individuals, labs, and institutions. Spiegel and Keith-Spiegel(l970) found a

relatively high degree of consensus on 11 scenarios given to a sample of 746 research

and clinical psychologists. Respondents generally believed that authorship should

never be given out of deference to status or without active involvement in a project.

A follow-up study involving only academic psychologists showed similar results

(Bridgwater, Bornstein, Walkenbach, 1981). Thus researchers' beliefs were

consistent with principles regarding authorship available from the APA at that time:

Credit goes to those (and to only those) who contribute to a project, and in general,

credit should be proportional to one's contribution. One might conclude that ethical

principles regarding authorship reflect the beliefs of most research psychologists.

However, consistency with proscribed ethical norms was not s apparent in a

sample of student respondents. Costa and Gatz (1992) asked students and faculty

members in psychology departments to read vignettes about faculty-student col-

laborations and to assign authorship order. The vignettes varied faculty input on

the project,

s

well as whether the work involved dissertation or master's-level

research. Results showed that few of the student respondents assigned sole author-

ship to a student in a dissertation story, even when advisor input was low. In

addition, a substantial number of respondents, especially students, gave the advisor

first authorship on a dissertation publication when faculty input was high. Costa

and Gatz noted that the APA had explicit criteria for authorship available at the

time of the study, and the guidelines clearly recommended first authorship for the

student in published dissertations (p. 356). Hence, people's ratings did not reflect

contemporaneousethical guidelines when case scenarios involved faculty-student

collaborations.




3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


4/22

One explanation for these results is that policies on authorship are unable to

overcome institutional or individual norms regarding au thorship when collabora-

tions involve people of disparate status. However, it is also possible that participants

were simply unaw are of policies on authorship, which (deliberately) were not part

of the survey. Indeed, previous studies on authorship standards provide only

indirect evidence about the relation between policy statements and individual

beliefs. In genera l, articles describe the results of the study , presen t the substance

of the written guidelines, and offer some assessment of consistency between the

two. Nonetheless, whether the presence of a written policy regarding authorship

affects perceptions of a given authorship assignm ent has not been exam ined in any

systematic way.

Apart from impacting perceptions of the merits of an authorship arrangement,

policies on authorship may also affect beliefs about available responses to a

problematic situation. For instance, a policy might communicate an institution's

interest in being aware of and attempting to settle disputes. That is, people may

perceive the policy as institutional support for reporting problems. On the other

hand, reporting may be unlikely if groups perceive themselves as vulnerable to

retaliation; regardless of the presence or absence of a policy, such people instead

may view the risks of reporting as outweighing any impetus to pursue a c laim.

Swazey, Anderson, and Lewis (1993), for instance, found that a majority of

graduate students believed they could not report problematic or ethically suspect

situations to an institutional authority without expecting retaliation. Whether a

policy can minimize one's sense of vulnerability has not been tested, to our

knowledge.

Finally, a policy's potential impact on either perceptions of wrongdoing or

decisions to report may interact with other group membership variables, such as

sex. Previous research indicates that male graduate students tend to express m ore

support for pursuing legal action when presented with hypothetical wrongful

dismissal cases (Grant Wagar, 1992). Some studies of academic and nonaca-

demic whistleblowing found that men were more likely to report wrongdoing to

a superior (Miceli, Dozier, Near, 1991; Miceli Near, 1988). Vidmar and

Schuller (1987) found som e evidence that men score higher on a claim propensity

measure. These results suggest that, compared to w omen , men may perceive greater

harm when a rule or policy has been violated-an explana tion supported by

theorists of child and adult moral reasoning (e.g., Gilligan, 1982; Kohlberg

Kramer, 1969). Such work tends to find that men engage in grea ter rule-based moral

reasoning than do women. How ever, men and women may simply differ in their

views of appropriate responses to a violation of any kind . For instance, men may

view reporting the violation as more likely and as more effective compared to

wom en; in addition, men may express less concern over possible consequences

associated with such reporting.

D o w n l o a d e d b y [

b - o n : B i b l i o t e c a d o c o n h e c i m e n t o o n l i n e U A C ] a t 0 8 : 5

3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


5/22

THE PRESENT STU Y

The present study explores the relation between explicit knowledge of a policy on

publication credit and graduate students judgments of the ethical nature of an

authorship assignment and beliefs about reporting. In a survey given to graduate

students, participants read one of three vignettes about a collaboration between a

student and an advisor. The three vignettes, developed through pretesting a number

of different factors involved in collaborative research, systematically varied the

researcher s contributions and status (professor vs. student). Because we asked

about perceptions of both the authorship arrangement and the student s likelihood

of reporting, we created vignettes that would increase the likelihood that partici-

pants perceived some form of wrongdoing-in all cases the professor committed

an ethically questionable act in managing a resulting manuscript. We experimen-

tally manipulated awareness of a policy on authorship by describing it in only half

of the questionnaires.

We predicted a main effect for vignettes, such that participants would be less

tolerant of a professor becoming first author when the professor was described as

contributing less to the project, especially if the study was dissertation related. In

addition, we expected a main effect for policy; that is, participants in the condition

that included a policy statement should be less tolerant of deviations from the policy

or of questionable behavior. We included sex in the model to explore possible

effects.

To assess whether a policy also might impact beliefs about reporting a dispute,

participants rated the likelihood, effectiveness, and possible negative consequences

of (a) talking to a dean, (b) filing a complaint, and (c) contacting the journal to

indicate that the authorship order is incorrect. We expected higher likelihood and

effectiveness ratings associated with such responses when the student in the vignette

did more work on the project, when apolicy was described, and when the participant

was male. We also explored whether a policy serves to minimize students percep-

tions of the possibility of negative consequences should they report.

METHO

Participants and Procedure

Eligible participants consisted of all graduate students in the physical, biological,

engineering, and social science fields at a large southeastern university. The

questionnaire was distributed to 1,289 students across3 university departments.

Although previous work regarding perceptions of authorship (e.g., Costa Gatz,

1992) focused on graduate students in psychology, our sample excluded psychol-

ogy graduate students because they were part of pretesting and because they might

be likely to have familiarity with the authorship policy described in the survey


b - o n : B i b l i o t e c a d o c o n h e c i m e n t o o n l i n e U A C ] a t 0 8 : 5 3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


6/22

(discussed next). Participants randomly received one of six versions of the ques-

tionnaire, including a return envelope. Approximately 2 weeks following distribu-

tion, a reminder note was sent to every student.

There were 277 surveys returned, for a response rate of 21 . This fairly low

return rate is not unusual for surveys distributed through the mail; however, our

emphasis on ensuring anonymity of responses may have lessened people s tendency

to respond. As our interest centers on responses to different conditions, we con-

ducted chi-square tests on our sample. Return rates for the different versions (i.e.,

policy-no-policy versions, as well as the three vignette conditions) were equivalent

and did not differ significantly by groups of people (e.g., by sex, by discipline, and

by race). In addition, we compared sample characteristics against information

available from the enrollment profile of graduate students at the university. Survey

respondents generally matched the demographic characteristics of the school

population, except that our sample included slightly more women than might have

been expected (women

are

37 of the population) and fewer minorities. In addition,

we had more returns from biological science students (who are

31

of the

population) and slightly less from the social science students (who are 23 ,

excluding psychology). Table profiles our sample s characteristics.

nstrument

Vignette construction A large number of factors might influence decisions

about authorship. We used pretesting to identify those contributions to a project

TABLE

Summary

of

Sample haracteristics

ariable ariable

Sex Discipline

Male 57 Physical sciences 20

Female

43

Biological sciences

42

Year

EngineeringIComputer science 21

First 20 Social science 16

Second 17 Previous authorship

Third 21 None

3

Fourth 18 One previous publication 21

Fifth+

24

Two or more previous publications

48

Race Previous first authorship 46

White 79

Asian 15

African American

<

Hispanic

<

Note N= 277



3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


7/22

that would be most important to manipulate in our vignettes. Twenty graduate

students in psychology and

19

undergraduates taking an advanced course in

psychology completed apretest questionnaireabout acollaborativeproject between

a student and a faculty member. The instrument indicated that the professor became

first author on a resulting publication, and it listed nine items that could conceivably

be related to authorship determinations, such as coming up with the idea for the

study, developing the design, performing the analyses, and the context of the

collaboration. The latter context variables included the quality of the working

relationship, the lab's standard authorship practices, and authorship practices in the

department. We also included a statement about whether the study was dissertation

related.

Participants were to consider each item separately and to mark 7-point Likert-

type scales (i.e., one for each item) to indicate how ethical or unethical it was for

the professor to be first author given the information described (e.g., The professor

came up with the idea for the study or When this professor has worked with other

students, the professor has always been first author on papers which result from

collaborative work ). A second version of the pretest also stated that the professor

had become first author, but the information provided was favorable to the student

(e.g., the student came up with the idea for the study; the professor has not always

been first author on papers in the past).' From this pretest, we were able to determine

which factors tended to produce extreme ratings at either ends of the scale (i.e.,

ethical or unethical , as well as whether certain items were likely to be perceived

differently depending on the status of the contributor.

Across versions, five items consistently impacted ethics ratings: (a) who came

up with the idea, (b) who translated the idea into a researchable question, (c) who

developed the actual design of the study, (d) who did the data collection and

analysis, and (e) whether the paper was a version of the student's dissertation. Even

this more limited set of variables could be combined to create a large number of

different vignettes. To maximize power, we wished to limit the number of vignettes

to three, each crossed with the policy-no-policy dimension, creating six conditions.

Thus, to further restrict the possible dimensions of the vignettes, we decided to vary

two general concepts: who came up with the idea for the study and who oversaw

most of the remaining work on the project.

The final vignettes represent the following arrangements: The professor comes

up with the idea, the student does most of the remaining work (Vignette 1 ; the

student comes up with the idea, the professor does most of the remaining work

(Vignette2 . We also represent a dissertation situation in which the student comes

up with the idea and does most of the work, but this work is overseen by the advisor

'Actual writing of the manuscript was not varied across vignettes. Our rationale for this is that

misappropriating written work done by others is defined as plagiarism (Goodyea r et al., 19 92) .

How ever, b eliefs about authorship given factors unrelated to actual writing (e .g ., data collec tion) may

be more variab le. Pretest measures and detailed results are available from

Mary

Rose on request.



3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


8/22

(Vignette 3 . In all cases, the professor ends up

s

first author on the resulting

manuscript.

Finally, our study is inquiring about both the ethics of authorship arrangements

and perceptions of students' willingness to contact authorities about a dispute with

a faculty member. We wished to avoid a situation in which respondents believed

that no wrongdoing had occurred and therefore viewed questions about possible

responses

s

virtually moot. To ensure that all scenarios included an action that

could conceivably be labeled

s

injurious, the vignettes stated that the advisor sent

out the manuscript without giving the student a chance for a final review or

discussing the order of authorship. A review of scientific organizations' codes of

ethics by the first author indicates that submitting a manuscript without obtaining

authors' final approval is discouraged by a number of academic groups. The final

versions of the vignettes appear in the Appendix. Language in all vignettes was

neutral regarding sex.

Policy manipulation Half of our questionnaires included the text of the

APA's (1992) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, which

was described s the policy on authorship at the hypothetical university. The

principles state the following:

1. Psychologsts take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only

for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed.

2. Principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the

relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regard-

less of their relative status. Mere possession of an institutional position, such s

Department Chair, does not justify authorship credit. Minor contributions to the

research or to the writing for publications are appropriately acknowledged, such s

in footnotes or in an introductory statement.

3.

A student is usually listed as principal author on any multiple-authored article

that is substantially based on the student's dissertation or thesis.

This policy was used verbatim, except that the word

Psychologists

was changed to

Researchers

We selected this policy because, compared to other types of guidelines

(e.g., those from medical journals), it addresses issues highly relevant to students

(such as inclusion of the dissertation guideline and reference to collaborations with

those who have more powerful institutional positions). In addition, the wording of

the policy is very general (e.g.,

contribution

is not further specified),and it therefore

offers a very minimal policy manipulation.

Participant characteristics

The instrument asked for demographic and per-

sonal information about the participant. These included sex, year in school, racial

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ b - o n : B i b l i o t e c a d o c o n h e c i m e n t o o n l i n e U A C ] a t 0 8 : 5

3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


9/22

group (White, African American, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, or other),

previous experience with authorship (first and otherwise), and department. To

protect participants anonymity, departments were broadly divided into four disci-

plines, including physical sciences, biological sciences, social sciences, and com-

puter science-engineering.Respondents also indicated if they were aware of any

policy on authorship from their department, university, professional organization,

or a journal to which they have submitted work. In this way, we could assess the

possibility that people in the no-policy condition might have had aparticular policy

in mind while responding to the questions.

Measuring perception of authorship designation

Using two separate

7

point Likert-type scales, participants were asked to rate how ethical it was for the

professor to be first author and how ethical it was for the professor to submit the

manuscript to the journal without discussing the order of authorship with the

student. The scale was labeled so that lower numbers corresponded to rating the

item as more unethical, from 1 (highly unethical), to 2 (somewhat unethical), to 3

(slightly unethical). Higher numbers rated the item as more ethical, from

7

(highly

ethical), to 6 (somewhat unethical), to (slightly ethical). The rating of 4 served

as a neutral point.

Measuring perception of possible responses To assess the participants

perceptions of what responses, if any, a dissatisfied student might make in the

situation, the instrument also asked the following:

Imagine the student in the case was dissatisfied with the order of authorship

on the paper. We present a number of things the student could do in response

to the situation. For each action, use the scales below to mark a number which

best describes your opinion about the following: 1) how likely it is that the

student would respond in this particular way; 2) how effective each response

would be in resolving the student s dissatisfaction; and 3) the seriousness of

the negative consequences, ifany, that might result from taking the particular

action.

We then listed nine actions: doing nothing, switching advisors, resolving privately

to discuss the issue of authorship in future collaborative work, warning other

students about collaborations with this faculty member, discussing the issue with

someone else who could give advice (e.g., another faculty member), discussing the

order of authorship directly with the advisor, discussing the situation with someone

in authority at the university (e.g., a dean), making a formal complaint, and

contacting the journal to inform them that the student believes the authorship order

is incorrect.

Given previous reports on graduate students reluctance to report ethical viola-

tions (Swazey et al., 1993), our present interests focus on graduate students beliefs




3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


10/22

AUTHORSHIP POLICIES 7

about reporting the situation to an authority. Thus, here we analyze only the latter

three responses-those variables related to formal reporting (contacting a dean or

other authority at the university, making a formal complaint, and contacting the

journal). The

three

ratings for each item were done on 7-point Likert-type scales

with lower numbers indicating less likelihood, effectiveness, and less possibility

of negative consequences.

nalytic Strategy

Across all ratings, missing values were considered a neutral response,

s

has been

recommended in survey design literature(Backstr0m Hursh-Cksar,

1963,

p. 202).

Only

14

surveys

(5 )

had missing data on the variables we analyzed. For items

pertaining to perceptions of the final authorship order and unilaterally submitting

the manuscript, we conducted a separate three-way analysis of variance, with a 3

(vignette type)

x 2

(policy present vs. policy absent)

x

2 (sex) design for each of

the authorship order and submission items. The models included tests of both main

effects and all higher order interactions. We further investigated significant main

effect or interaction terms through post hoc tests of contrasts. To examine whether

any other demographic variables predicted responses, race, discipline, year in

school, and previous authorship experience were added to the models as covariates.

To examine the reporting items, we conducted a

3

(vignette type)

x

2 (policy

present vs. policy absent) x 2 (sex) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA).

Our dependent variables were the means for the likelihood ratings, the effectiveness

ratings, and the consequences ratings. The means were derived from collapsing

across the three reporting items (contacting someone in authority, filing a com-

plaint, speaking with the journal). Significant MANOVA values were followed up

with univariate tests, and significant main effect or interaction terms for the latter

were followed up with post hoc tests of contrasts. In addition, we once again

controlled for additional factors by adding covariates to the model (i.e., race,

discipline, year in school, and previous authorship experience).

RESULTS

Relation of Participant Sex to Other Variables

As sex of the participant is one of our independent variables, we examined whether

sex correlated with any other characteristics to avoid possible confounds. There

ch p rt from our theoretical interest in the item s pertaining to reporting a focus on this limited set of

items is also proved more methodologically sound due to difficulties with data reduction. Factor

analysis for instance would not e appropriate given differing experimental conditions; in addition a

series of multivariate analysis of variance models for the 2 7- ite m strikes s e e m unwieldy. Our initial

interest in the range of responses is best viewed

as

providing it e m for exploratory analyses.



3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


11/22

were no differences between men and women on any of the background variables,

except that significantly more men reported having been a first author (53 vs.

38 ),x (I,

N

= 258)=5 . 5 , ~ .02. Therefore, we decided to control for experience

with first authorship by treating it as a covariate in our models. Controlling for first

authorship was deemed especially important, given that the vignettes involved

questions concerning authorship order.

Perceptions of uthorship Designation

We asked, How ethical was it for the professor to be first author on the manuscript?

First, there was a highly significant main effect for vignette condition, F(2,255) =

60.14, MSE

=

2.08, p .0001,

s

well

s

a significant main effect for policy

condition, F(1, 256)

=

4.55, p .05. In addition, the main effect for sex was

significant, F(l, 256) = 5.58, p .05. However, these three main effects were

qualified by a significant three-way interaction (Vignette x Policy x Gender), F(2,

255) = 3.11, MSE = 2.08, p .05. No other interaction terms (Vignette x Policy;

Vignette x Sex; Policy x Sex) were significant. The significant three-way interac-

tion term suggests that policy and vignette manipulations operated differently for

men than for women. graph of means for men and women (Figure 1) indicates

that this is the case. Post hoc tests were conducted separately for men and for

3

women.

Men In the male-only group, presence of a policy (M= 3.15, SE

=

.1

7 4

or

absence of a policy (M= 3.22, SE= .18) had no main effect on authorship ratings,

F( l, 156)

=

0.12, p .lo. There was also no significant interaction between policy

and vignette, F(2, 155)

=

1.83, MSE

=

2.28, p .lo. However, there was a large

main effect for vignette condition, F(2, 155)

=

55.06, p .001. Male participants

rated the professor's first duthor position as more unethical in the dissertation

condition (Vignette 3; M = 1.83, SE = .18), compared with Vignette 1 (in which

the student did the bulk of the work and the professor generated the idea; M= 2.94,

SE= .22), F(2, 155)= 12.31, p .001. In addition, it was more unethical for the

professor to

be

first author in Vignette 1 (when the student did the work and the

Note that due to missing

data

the sample size was

258

when we include experience with first

authorship as a covariate. Without the covariate, the three-way interaction term still closely approached

conventional significance, F 2,276) 2.64 .M. In addition, the main effect for sex suggests that it

is prudent to analyze the groups separately.

40uranalyses used least-square means, which areweighted by sample size of the ce ll. They estimate

what the mean would have been had the analysis of variance design been balanced. Because they are

estimates o f means, the computer output provides standard errors rather than standard deviations .



3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


12/22

Policy

o Policy

Policy

o Policy

Professor idea Student idea

student work

Dissertation

professor work

6

5

z

4

.

w

3

1

FIGURE 1

Ratings on first authorship by vignette and policy cond ition for men upper graph)

and women lower graph). Higher ratings correspond to belief that professor

as

first authorship

is more ethical.

W o m e n

1

3




3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


13/22

7

ROSE

ND

FISCHER

professor came up with the idea) than when the situation was reversed and the

student contributed the idea and the professor carried out the study (Vignette 2; M

= 4.79, SE = .20), F(2, 155) = 39.9, p .001. No demographic or background

variables (race, experience with authorship, experience with first authorship, or

discipline) were related to authorship ratings. In addition, these findings did not

differ when people in the no-policy condition who had indicated awareness of some

other policy (n = 7) were deleted from the analysis.

Women

A very different picture emerged for the female participants. First,

there was a main effect for policy (policy M

=

2.36,

SE

=

.19; no-policy M

=

3.10,

SE = .23), F(1, 116)=7.8 1,MSE = 1.96, p .O1. As the graph for women in Figure

1 illustrates, policy had a significant effect for judgments of the professor as first

author in Vignette 2 (the student contributed the idea and the professor carried out

the study; policy M

=

3.17, SE

=

.28; no-policy M

=

4.45, SE

=

.48), F( l, 116)

=

6.21, p .02. Policy did not significantly impact ratings within Vignette 1 (policy

M= 2.38, SE

=

.27; no-policy M

=

3.2 1,SE = .39), F(1, 116)= 3.22, p .08. Also,

in Vignette 3 (the dissertation condition), women s ratings about the professor were

low regardless of whether a policy was described (M = 1.54, SE = .40) or not

described (M

=

1.67,

SE

=

.29), F( l, 116)

=

0.43, p

>

.lo.

As with male participants, female participants also had a significant main effect

for vignette condition, F(2, 115)= 22.38, p .0001. The professor as first author

was perceived as significantly more unethical in the dissertation condition (M

=

1.57,SE = .24) than in Vignette 1 (when the student s role was limited to carrying

out the work on the study; M

=

2.83,

SE =

.23), F(2,115)

=

15 .83 ,~ .001. Vignette

1 also differed from Vignette 2, in which the professor did the work but the student

had the idea (M= 3.79,

SE

.28), F(2,115)

=

8.39,p< .O1. When other demographic

variables were added to the model, there were no further significant predictors of

authorship ratings, beyond vignette and policy. Once again, results were unaffected

by removing those in the no-policy condition who knew of some other policy (n =

12).

Submitting the manuscript

There was no main effect for policy when

participants rated how ethical it was for the professor to submit the manuscript to

the journal without having discussed the order of authorship with the student; in

addition, no interaction term reached significance. There was a significant main

effect for vignette, F(2, 255)

=

13.41, p .001, and for sex, F(l, 256)

=

4.81, p

.02. Whereas all participants mean ratings were solidly in the unethical range, on

average women s ratings (M= 1.81,SE = .13) reflected much more intolerance than

did men s (M

=

2.16,

SE =

.13). In addition, irrespective of participant sex, both

Vignettes 1 and 3 differed from Vignette 2: It was more unethical for the professor

to submit the manuscript unilaterally in Vignette 1 (when the student had done the




3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


14/22

AUTHORSHIP POLICIES 7

work on the project; M = 1.89,SE = .14) and in the dissertation condition (Vignette

3; M = 1.51,SE

=

.14) than in Vignette 2 (student had idea, professor did bulk of

the work on the project;

M =

2.55,

SE =

.15). No additional variables regarding

participants backgrounds predicted these ratings.

Perceptions of Reporting

Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations of the likelihood, effectiveness,

and consequences estimates of the three reporting responses (contacting someone

in authority, filing a complaint, and contacting the journal). Pearson correlations

between the composite means on likelihood (M

=

2.15,

S D =

1.17), effectiveness

(M=3.59, S D = 1.56) and consequence M = 5.70,S D= 1.48) ratings were modest.

The likelihood of reporting was positively correlated with the effectiveness of doing

so (r= .29,p < .0001); the effectiveness of reporting was positively associated with

more negative consequences (r = .28, p .0001); finally, likelihood and conse-

quences ratings were uncorrelate. (r = -.02, p > 10).

MANOVA

results

Given unequal sample sizes between cells in our design,

we used the more conservative Pillai s Trace as our MANOVA test statistic

(Tabachnick Fidell, 1989). The independent variables were the same as those

used in the analyses of perceptions of wrongdoing: vignette type, policy, sex and

the interactions between these variables.

The combined dependent variables were significantly predicted only by the

three-way interaction term (Vignette Policy Sex), F(6,526)

=

3 . 3 4 , ~ .O1. We

followed up the MANOVA test with univariate tests of the likelihood, effective-

ness, and consequences means. The three-way interaction between vignette, policy,

and sex significantly predicted only estimates of the likelihood that a dissatisfied

student would engage in reporting behavior, F(2, 263)

=

8.63,

MSE

=

1.27, p

TABLE 2

Means and Standard Deviations for the Perceived Likelihood Effectiveness

and Consequences of Reporting a Problem With an Authorship Arrangement

Likelihood Efleciiveness Consequences

Response SD SD SD

Talking

to

a dean 2.74 .56 3.90 1.83 5.39 1.62

Filing a complaint 2.15

1.41

3.75 1.91

5.68 1.67

Contacting the journal 1.60

1.13

3.13 2.02

6.02 1.74

Note. N= 277 . Ratings made on a 7-point scale; lower values indicate lower perceived likelihood

lower effectiveness or fewer negative consequences.




3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


15/22

72

ROSE

ND

FISCHER

.001. In further analyses of the likelihood variable, we again considered men s and

women s responses separately, using only vignette, policy condition, and an

interaction term as predictors. The means of these results are graphed in Figure 2,

which indicates that the pattern of results for men and for women are almost reverse

images of one another.

Men

A significant Vignette Policy interaction appeared in the male-only

group, F(2, 155)=6.76,

M

= 1.25,

p

.05. No other predictors (discipline, race,

experience with authorship) were significant when added as covariates. Within the

policy-present condition, estimates of the likelihood of reporting increase across

vignettes (M = 1.80,

S

= 0.22; M = 2.16,

S

= 0.22; M = 2.80,

S

= 0.21 for

Vignettes 1, 2, and 3, respectively). A test of simple effects within the policy

condition indicates that the difference between Vignette 1 (professor had idea,

student executed study) and Vignette 3 (dissertation scenario) is significant, F(l,

156)

=

10.89,p .001, as is the difference between Vignette 2 and 3, F(1, 156)=

4.46,p .05. Means appear to decrease somewhat in the no-policy condition (M =

2.22,

S

= 0.26; M= 1.89,

S

= 0.20; M= 1.89,

S

= 0.22 for Vignettes l ,2 , and

3, respectively); however, these three conditions did not differ significantly from

one another.

An examination of a possible policy effect within each of the three vignettes

resulted in a significant effect for policy only in Vignette 3, the dissertation

situation, F(l, 156) 9.08,p .01. The likelihood of reporting was rated as higher

when the policy statement was described compared to when it was not. All findings

for males were unaffected by deleting participants in the no-policy condition who

indicated previous awareness of a policy.

Women

Women s ratings showed nearly an opposite pattern. Only in the

absence of a policy statement did women rate the likelihood of reporting as higher

in the dissertation condition (Vignette 3;M =2.79,

S

0.22) compared to Vignette

1 (in which the professor had the idea; M= 1.89,

S =

0.29), F( 1,116)=6.00,

MS

= 1.30,p .05, and Vignette 2 (in which the student contributed the idea;M = 1.78,

S

=

0.33), F(l, 116)

=

6.53,

p

.05. Vignettes 1 and 2 did not differ from one

another. In the policy-present condition, on the other hand, likelihood of reporting

was lower in Vignette 2 (M= 1.74,

S

= 0.24) compared to Vignette 1 M 2.54,

S

=

0.22), F(1, 116)

=

6.00, p .05. In the policy condition, the dissertation

scenario did not produce likelihood of reporting estimates M 1.94,S

=

.29) that

differed significantly from the other two vignettes.

Finally,

as

with men, policy effects within each vignettecondition appeared only

in Vignette 3, the dissertation condition. Unlike men, however, women s likelihood

ratings were lower in the policy condition compared to the no-policy condition,

F(1, 116)

=

5.60,p .05. In other words, female participants viewed reporting as


b - o n : B i b l i o t e c a d o c o n h e c i m e n t o o n l i n e U A C ] a t 0 8 : 5 3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


16/22

Men

- o policy

Policy

Professor ideal Student ideal Dissertation

student work professor work

Women

t

No policy

Policy

Professor ideal Student idea issertation

student work professor work

FIGURE Likelihood ratings for a com posite variable of

possible reporting behaviors, by

vignette and policy condition. Men s ratings

ppe r

n the upper graph and wom en s in the lower

graph. Higher ratings correspond to higher likelihood estim ates .

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ b - o n : B i b l i o t e c a d o c o n h e c

i m e n t o o n l i n e U A C ] a t 0 8 : 5 3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


17/22

7 ROSE ND FISCHER

less likely in the dissertation scenario when they had been exposed to a policy on

authorship, compared to women who were not provided with a policy description.

The pattern of results for all analyses did not change when policy-aware participants

in the no-policy conditions were removed.

DISCUSSION

Our survey results indicate that a policy impacts perceptions of the ethics of an

authorship arrangement between a professor and a student,

s

well as perceptions

regarding the likelihood that a student--described as dissatisfied-will report the

problem in some manner. Nevertheless, the impact of an authorship policy de-

pended a great deal on the sex of the respondent. We now discuss results for ratings

of wrongdoing and ratings of reporting separately.

Perceptions of uthorship Order

Consistent with previous studies, all participants ratings of the appropriateness of

a given authorshiporder were greatly affected by descriptionsof work arrangements

on the project: The more work a professor was described as doing, the more ethical

the professor s position as first author appeared to be. Interestingly, respondents

appeared to place the most value on the combination of work related to overseeing

the design, collection, and analysis of the data compared to responsibility for

coming up with the idea for the study.

Turning to our initial question regarding the effect of a policy description on

reactions to authorship arrangements, we found that our description of a policy had

no impact on ratings of the professor as first author in dissertation-related manu-

scripts. The policy s explicit commentary that students should generally be first

author in such situations is consistent with the beliefs of students in our sample,

who uniformly expressed strong disapproval of the professor taking first authorship

in this case. In addition, presence or absence of auniversity policy had no significant

impact on men s ratings of the ethics of the advisor as first author in any vignette.

On the other hand, an authorship policy did impact female participants ratings.

This significant policy effect for women appeared only in Vignette

2

in which the

student contributed the idea but the professor oversaw data collection and analyses.

Women in the policy conditions seemed to protect students interests in first

authorship across conditions: In Vignette

2

policy-aware women were critical of

the professor s position

s

first author; however, their ratings did not benefit the

professor in Vignette

1

when contributions and roles were reversed.

Why might female graduate students exhibit this pattern of responses in the

policy condition? Although the vignettes were purposefully neutral in language

regarding sex, it is possible that these female participants were more likely to adopt

the perspective of the student when reading the vignettes. The APA policy s explicit




3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


18/22

UTHORSHIP POLICIES 7

notation that consideration of senior status, by itself, is irrelevant to authorship

determinations may have focused women's attention on protecting the student's

interests. Only female participants in the policy condition showed favoritism to the

student, which may relate to the relatively fewer opportunities there are to observe

female faculty members: women constitute only 17% of the faculty in the depart-

ments surveyed. Thus, the result may reflect a tendency (albeit slight) on the part

of the women to align themselves with the student's interests when issues of status

have been made salient. Of course, further work would be needed to replicate this

finding, as well as to test more directly whether any significant results reflect

differences in interpretations of a given policy, of the vignette, or both.

Reporting When issatisfied

Consistent with previous studies, graduate students rated the likelihood that a

dissatisfied student would report a problematic situation to someone in authority

s low, and they indicated that severe negative consequences would probably

accompany such reporting. In addition, students also expressed only moderate

support for the effectiveness of such reporting. Neither variations in work arrange-

ments nor description of a policy nor participants' sex predicted ratings of the

effectiveness of reporting as a way to resolve the student's dissatisfaction.The null

result also appeared for ratings of possible negative consequences associated with

reporting; however, we note that some respondents may have been uncertain as to

whether our question referred to consequences for the student or for the faculty

member.

However, when asked to rate the likelihood that a dissatisfied student would

report the situation, male and female graduate students in our sample differed in

their responses to apolicy in the dissertation condition. When authorship guidelines

were present, men rated a student as more likely to report when the vignette

described an advisor as first author on a dissertation-related manuscript (Vignette

3an authorship arrangement the policy discourages. Women, on the other hand,

had lower likelihood ratings in this same instance; instead, likelihood ratings were

higher when no university policy was described.

To explain this apparent sex difference in reactions to a policy, we might

consider why one might pursue more formal action (i.e., contacting an institutional

authority) in a situation involving putatively unethical conduct. First, people may

do so for an informational purpose: For instance, they may wish to confirm their

beliefs that wrongdoing has occurred. If one regards the policy as a useful source

of information about wrongdoing, then reading it has answered whether the

institution similarly views the professor as first author on a dissertation manuscript

as usually inappropriate. Thus, contacting another institutional authority would

provide little new knowledge, and this action might be perceived as less likely.

From this perspective, men and women may differ in their views about the

informational value of the policy.



3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


19/22

7 ROSE

ND

FISCHER

Nevertheless, this does not explain results in the no-policy condition, for presumably

both men and women without policy guidance might also wish to contact n authority

for consultative purposes, and men's likelihood ratings were uniformly low when no

policy was described. However, people may also pursue formal actions because they

desire institutionally sponsored restitution or even retribution for their perceived injury.

A more detailed policy may provide evidence about the possibility of an institutional

intervention into the situation, and men and women may respond differently to this

possibility. For instance, women and men may differ in their absolute desire to see the

advisor condemned or punished. A lower desire for condemnation or retribution would

probably make one less likely to report a problem, regardless of whether actions have

violated a clearly stated community norm.

These possibilities are, however, speculative at this point. Future work on

responses to ethical violations might benefit from detailed inquiries into men's and

women's expectations for institutional involvement, and it might also be interesting

to experimentally vary the specificity of a given policy to test for possible differ-

ences on ratings of both wrongdoing and the likelihood of formal action.

imitations

The present study is subject to several limitations. First, given a single-site sample

and a response rate of 21 , we are conservative about generalizing these results to

a broad group of graduate students. Notably, return rates did not differ by survey

condition; nevertheless, our overall sample may have been subject to a volunteer

bias or have disproportionately included those people with particularly strong

opinions about authorship. We have very little information on nonresponders,

except that we know our sample generally reflects the demographics of the

university. This community is predominantly White, and it bears noting that our

results may not generalize to other groups.

Second, the vignette methodology itself contains both strengths and weaknesses.

On one hand, we were able to vary systematically contributions and status in the

stories; on the other, descriptions were necessarily short and limited in detail to

maintain consistency across the variations. Clearly a wide range of details are

available for inclusion in the vignettes, such as more information about the history

of the project, the overall quality of the working relationship, the sex of the

participants, the role of outside funding, and information about contributor's

construals regarding the importance of their work on a project. Although results

from pretesting guided many of our decisions about what to include in the vignettes,

much of the final product necessarily involved judgment calls. We can make few

pronouncements about other types of authorship situations or other possible dis-

putes. People may also have concerns over whether another person deserves any

authorship credit at all, and in more serious cases, whether plagiarism has occurred.

Ratings regarding wrongdoing and the possible impact of an authorship policy may

very well differ in these other situations.




3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


20/22

AUTHORSHIP POLICIES

In addition, concerns about both the number of cells in our design and the

ecological validity of the stories limited our ability to fully cross the design. For

example, we did not have a situation in which the student came up with the idea

and executed the study, but the project was not described as a dissertation. This

would have helped us to isolate the impact of describing something explicitly as a

dissertation. Relatedly, the dissertation vignette differed from the others in that

the student both came up with the idea and carried out the work. Thus, two variables

had to be simultaneously varied: referring to the project as a dissertation and

describing a student who has a higher level of involvement in the project. This limits

our ability to know the relative contribution of either factor. A further limitation is

that we also did not have instances in which the student becomes first author on the

paper because of our desire to examine students' reactions to a possible violation

of expectations. Although this could have provided acomparison to our conditions,

in which the professor takes first authorship, we wished to maintain some plausi-

bility for our reporting items.

Finally, were resources available, it would have been interesting to give our

survey to junior and senior faculty to compare their perspectives to those of the

students. We generally view this study as exploratory in nature and encourage

further work to more fully examine the practical effect of policies aimed at guiding

academic work and authorship designations in particular.

ON LUSION

Do policies impact students' judgments regarding authorship? Results from our

study point to the possibility that such policies affect views of wrongdoing in cases

in which a correct authorship designation is not apparent; however, this appears to

be the case for women but not for men. On the other hand, when policies do indicate

proper authorship assignment (as on dissertations), they may have an impact on

men's beliefs about the likelihood of seeking out institutional authorities. As

professional organizationsand others debate the substance and language of policies

regarding research practices, we may wish to learn more about the impact of

creating community standards with respect to conduct in science. If policies are

ignored or minimized by some groups, their effectiveness might be limited. In

addition, even a detailed institutional policy may not guarantee that wrongdoing

will be reported. However, we urge further research on policy perceptions so that

we might create guidelines that best serve the needs of those they seek to protect.

REFEREN ES

American Psycho logical Association. 199 2). Ethical principles of psychologists and ode of conduct.

American Psychologist

47

1597-1 61 1.

Backstrorn, C ., Hursh-Ch ar,

G.

1963). Survey research. Chicago: Northwestern University Press.




3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


21/22

78 ROSE AND FISCHER

Bridgwater, C. A., Bornstein, P. H., Walkenbach, J. (1981). Ethical issues and the assignment of

publication credit.American Psychologist, 36, 524-525.

Costa, M. M., Gatz, M. (1992). Determination of authorship credit in published dissertations.

Psychological Science,

3, 354-357.

Council of Scientific Society Presidents. (1995). Sociery policies on ethics issues. Washington, DC:

Author.

Fine, M. A,, Kurdek,L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorshipcredit and authorship order

on faculty-student collaborations.

American Psychologist,

48, 1141-1 147.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a dtyerent voice: Psycholog ical theory

and

women s development. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Goodyear,R. K., Crego, C. A., Johnston,M. W. (1992). Ethical issues in the supervision of student

research: A study of critical incidents. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 23,

203-2 10.

Grant,

J .

D., Wagar, T.

H.

(1992). Willingness to take legal action in wrongful dismissal cases:

Perceptual differences between men and women. Perceptu al mid Mo tor Skills, 74, 1073-1074.

Hilts, P. J. (1993, September 25). Scholar who sued wins 1.2 million. The New York Times, p. A23.

Kohlberg, L., Kramer, R. (1969). Continuities and discontinuities n child and adult moral develop-

ment. Human Development, 12.93-120.

Miceli, M. P., Dozier,

J.

B., Near,

J.

P. (1991). Blowing the whistle on data-fudging: A controlled

field experiment.Jourml of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 27 1-295.

Miceli, M. P., Near,

J .

P. (1988). Individual and situational correlates of whistle-blowing.

Personnel

Psychology, 41, 267-28 1.

Spiegel, D., Keith-Spiegel, P. (1970). Assignment of publication credit: Ethics and practices of

psychologists.

American Psychologist,

25,

738-747.

Swazey,

J.

P., Anderson, M. S., Lewis,

K.

S. (1 993). Ethical problems in academic research.

American

Scientist.

81, 542-553.

Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S. (1989).

Using mu ltivariate statistics

(2nd ed.). New York: Harper

Collins.

Taubes, G. (1995). Plagiarism suit wins; experts hope it won't set a trend. Science, 268, 1125.

Vidmar, N., Schuller, R. A. (1987). Individual differences and the pursuit of legal rights: A

preliminary inquiry.

aw

and Human Behavior, 11, 299-317.

PPENDIX

Vignette

A graduate student and the student's advisor decide to work collaboratively on a

research project. The advisor has the idea for a study and poses a specific question

to be investigated. The student, excited by the idea, develops the initial idea into a

workable study. In addition, the student supervises all the data collection and

analysis, which is primarily done by a group of undergraduate students. Once the

results are available, the advisor and student both contribute equally to writing the

manuscript. The paper is left with the advisor for additional review. Instead of

giving the paper back to the student for another revision, the advisor sends the

following note:

I

made some slight changes to the paper and sent it out to the

journal. We should be hearing from them shortly. The paper that went out to the

journal listed the advisor as first author and the student as second author.




3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


22/22

UTHORSHIPPOLICIES 9

ignette


research project. As part of an assignment in a course taught by the advisor, the

student had proposed an idea for a study and a specific question to

e

investigated.

The advisor, excited by the idea, develops it into a workable study. In addition, the

advisor supervises all the data collection and analysis, which is primarily done by

a group of undergraduate students. Once the results are available, the advisor and

student both contribute equally to writing the manuscript. The paper is left with the

advisor for additional review. Instead of giving the paper back to the student for

another revision, the advisor sends the following note: I made some slight changes

to the paper and sent it out to the journal. We should

e

hearing from them shortly.

The paper that went out to the ournal listed the advisor as first author and the student

s second author.

ignette 3


research project. The student has the idea for a study and poses a specific question

to be investigated. With the advisor's assistance, the student develops it into a

workable study. In addition, the student supervises all the data collection and

analysis, which is primarily done by a group of undergraduate students. The project

develops into the student's dissertation. Once the dissertation is approved, the

advisor agrees to help the student revise it into a format suitable for journal

publication. They both work equally on preparing this manuscript. The paper is left

with the advisor for additional review. Instead of giving the paper back to the student

for another revision, the advisor sends the following note: I made some slight

changes to the paper and sent it out to the journal. We should e hearing from them

shortly. The paper that went out to the journal listed the advisor as first author and

the student s second author.



3 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6

rose & fischer 1998 do authorship policies impact students judgments of perceived wrongdoing

Documents