These materials are designed to provide motivation and content sufficient for an instructor to lead a workshop titled: “Mentoring for Responsible Research.” The long-term goal is to foster an environment in which research faculty are better empowered to initiate conversations within their research groups about the responsible conduct of research. Workshop participants are introduced to rationales, content, approaches, and resources so that they will have the means to develop and implement concrete, discipline-specific strategies for research ethics mentoring.
The Instructor's ...
The Instructor's Guide mirrors the syllabus and gives teaching notes and additional resources. A template for the workshop syllabus (in Word) format and two sample syllabi (Example Syllabus 1 and Example Syllabus 2) in pdf format are available for download.
NOTES TO THE INSTRUCTOR:
Misunderstandings and disputes among researchers are much more frequent than actual Research Misconduct (Martinson et al., 2005; Martinson et al., 2010). While some of these challenges may be unavoidable, many could be mitigated simply by clear and early communication. One way to meet this goal is by developing policy documents covering such issues as authorship or data management.
Criteria for authorship:
To be included as an author on a paper, it is necessary to have made a substantial and new contribution essential to publication of the paper, to provide a good faith contribution to writing and/or editing of the manuscript, and to approve the content of the version submitted for publication.
Criteria for acknowledgement:
Contributions to the publication of a manuscript that do not meet the criteria for authorship should be recognized in the acknowledgements section of the paper.
Order of authorship:
If a paper has more than one author, and assuming all authors meet the "Criteria for authorship," then the first author will typically be the person who wrote the first draft of the manuscript, the last author will be the head of the research group, and authors listed in between will be listed in order of decreasing contributions to the project.
Disputes about authorship:
If anyone believes that someone proposed to be an author, or someone left off of the list of authors, has been not been given credit appropriate to their contributions, then they should raise their concerns with the head of the research group, who has ultimate responsibility within the group for decisions about allocation of credit.
Appeals to decisions about authorship:
In the event that the above guidance is insufficient to resolve a dispute about authorship, then the interested parties should each draft an anonymized version of their perspective
on the issues at stake. These summaries will then be submitted to a mutually agreeable third party for a decision based on binding arbitration. If no clear decision is rendered, then a final decision will be made by a flip of a coin (or the equivalent if multiple competing options are proposed).
Examples of Possible Topics for Policies
Questions for Discussion