Assignment Of Authorship Research Articles

The significance of computer technologies in detecting plagiarism in scientific works

The article analyses problematic issues regarding the importance of using computer technologies in detecting plagiarism in scientific works. It was determined that the problem of plagiarism in science is not only a matter of legislation, but a manifestation of disdain for scientific ethics and moral standards by the scientists themselves. The issue of academic plagiarism must be solved comprehensively and with joint efforts, by applying effective mechanisms to prevent plagiarism.
 There is no single, complete, comprehensive and generally accepted definition of the category of plagiarism. The essence of plagiarism is the assignment of authorship to someone else’s original (literary, artistic, scientific) work or its part.
 The development of information technologies creates conditions for detecting illegal borrowing. Special computer programmes and online services check works for originality much faster. The essence and nature of computer technologies, their importance in detecting plagiarism in scientific works are studied. Positive and negative points in the application of computer anti-plagiarism technologies were identified, and an appropriate assessment was given to them.
 It is substantiated that plagiarism has a certain personification and specificity in various spheres and branches of human activity. The anti-plagiarism system almost does not take into account official parts of scientific works (cover letter, introduction, references to normative legal acts, conclusions, list of used sources) and evaluates them as plagiarism. The algorithm of the anti-plagiarism service must take into account constant stylistic turns and peculiarities of certain branches of science and technology. We believe that the results of new interpretations of scientific work should not be completely new. It is noted that checking with online services does not always reveal translations of texts or borrowings from editions not published online.
 Accordingly, the results of information processing with the help of specialized anti-plagiarism programmes and services cannot independently be circumstances that allow making reasonable conclusions about the presence or absence of plagiarism in a scientific work. Anti-plagiarism services and programs really help in detecting plagiarism as an additional tool for searching for possible matches of the text, followed by their analysis and processing by a specialist.
 But the situation with plagiarism still requires the use of plagiarism checking services (even with all their shortcomings). However, no matter how attractive and easy-to-use anti-plagiarism services are, it is necessary to do some work to improve information culture and respect for the copyrights of others.

Human‐ and AI‐based authorship: Principles and ethics

Key points The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for authorship are the dominant guidelines that guide who, and under what circumstances, an individual can be an author of an academic paper. Large language models (LLMs) and AI, like ChatGPT, given their ability and versatility, pose a challenge to the human‐based authorship model. Several journals and publishers have already prohibited the assignment of authorship to AI, LLMs, and even ChatGPT, not recognizing them as valid authors. We debate this premise, and asked ChatGPT to opine on this issue. ChatGPT considers itself as an invalid author. We applied the CRediT criteria to AI, finding that it was definitively able to satisfy three out of the 14 criteria, but only in terms of assistance. This was validated by ChatGPT itself.

Survey of trends in authorship assignment in gynecologic oncology: Keeping score and playing fair

Authorship confers credit to those responsible for a publication. In 1985, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria were founded to standardize authorship assignment. We sought to investigate practices and values in authorship assignment in Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) members. An anonymous online survey was distributed to SGO members from 09/2018–10/2018. Three multivariable logistic regression models were fit to predict ICJME authorship acceptance, assignment and denial. Of 1111 members surveyed, 266 responses were received (23.9%); 30.6% reported prior authorship assignment that did not meet ICMJE criteria, and 18.8% (n = 50) reported a history of accepting authorship not meeting ICJME criteria. Reasons for non-adherence included: inclusion of the author’s patients in the study (59.3%), resumé building (45.7%), and networking for career advancement (22.2%). The majority responded that ICJME criteria were generalizable (91.3%), helpful (83.8%), and considered non-adherence as scientific misconduct (66.0%). On multivariable analysis, practice duration of 5–20 years (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.16, 0.99, p < 0.05) or > 20 years (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08, 0.59, p < 0.05) were significant predictors for adherence with ICMJE authorship assignment compared to fellows and those in practice < 5 years. Similarly, practice duration of 5–20 years (HR 10.0, 95% CI 2.0, 49.2, p < 0.05) or > 20 years (HR 25.9, 95% CI 1.06, 3.9, p < 0.05) were significant predictors for denial of authorship assignment compared to fellows and those in practice < 5 years. While the majority of respondents report that ICJME criteria are helpful, adherence to these criteria is a concern, especially in fellows and early-career faculty.

Ethical authorship assignment gynecologic oncology: Keeping score and maintaining compliance?

Objective: Adherence to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria is low among gynecologic oncology fellows. We sought to investigate trends in authorship assignment among gynecologic oncologists and explore perceptions regarding the applicability and generalizability of ICMJE criteria.

Biomedical article authorship: A proposal to enhance the meaningful assignment of authorship

The authorship of articles in biomedical journals has proliferated despite efforts of publishers and editors to require justification of authorship. A proposal is made, herein, to resolve that matter by applying the “one paper: one citation” concept, so as to adhere to the thermodynamic principle of conservation of mass. This proposal provides (i) a means to allow authors to agree on their relative contribution, (ii) an incentive to assign only significant contributors to authorship, and (iii) the appropriate fractional contribution of each author when there are multiple authors. As a result, the sum of citations for any one paper shall be one paper. I believe this proposal the only method suggested, thus far, to make authorship of a biomedical paper authentic.

Accommodating an Uninvited Guest: Perspectives of Researchers in Switzerland on 'Honorary' Authorship.

The aim of this paper is to analyze the attitudes and reactions of researchers towards an authorship claim made by a researcher in a position of authority who has not made any scientific contribution to a manuscript or helped to write it. This paper draws on semi-structured interviews conducted with 33 researchers at three seniority levels working in biomedicine and the life sciences in Switzerland. This manuscript focuses on the analysis of participants' responses when presented with a vignette describing an authorship assignment dilemma within a research group. The analysis indicates that researchers use a variety of explanations and arguments to justify inclusion of what guidelines would describe as honorary or guest authorship. Fuzzy parameters such as "substantial contribution" lead to varied interpretation and consequently convenient application of authorship guidelines in practice. Factors such as the culture of the research group, the values and practice shaped by the research leaders, the hierarchy and relative (perceived) positions of power within research institutions, and the importance given to publications as the currency for academic success and growth tend to have a strong influence on authorship practice. Unjustified authorship assignment practices can be reduced to some extent by creating empowering research cultures where each researcher irrespective of his/her career stage feels empowered to confidently raise concerns without fearing adverse impact on their professional lives. However, individual researchers and research institutions currently have limited influence on established methods for evaluating academic success, which is primarily based on the number of high impact publications.

A publication missing from Lewis M. Terman's CV? Ralph K. White's 1931 "The versatility of genius".

Lewis M. Terman's publication list is impressively long. Even a selective bibliography includes around three dozen articles and books (Watson, 1974). Yet by many standards of authorship assignment, one significant contribution is invariably omitted: the paper "The Versatility of Genius" nominally sole-authored by Ralph K. White in 1931. To see why, it is necessary to place this article in the context of two careers-Terman's and White's. Terman (1940) discussed White's (1931) key results in his overview of "Psychological Approaches to the Biography of Genius." In that article, Terman's appreciation for the study seems much greater than the author's own. No criticisms even mentioned. Furthermore, it has become apparent many decades later that White's inquiry into the versatility of genius remains the most rigorous empirical treatment of the subject-a subject that encompasses the fascinating topic of polymathy as well (Cassandro & Simonton, 2010). Hence, why not give White's (1931) inquiry the attention it deserves? Just add the reference to Terman's curriculum vita with an asterisk indicating White's mentor as covert coauthor! (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Importance of authorship and inappropriate authorship assignment in paediatric research in low- and middle-income countries.

To understand the importance of authorship and authorship position, and gauge perceptions of inappropriate authorship assignment, among authors publishing paediatric research conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed-methods study using an online survey of both corresponding and randomly selected, non-corresponding authors who published research conducted in LMICs from 2006 to 2015 in the top four paediatric journals by Eigenfactor score. We used chi-square tests to compare responses by authors living in LMICs to authors living in high-income countries (HICs). We analysed qualitative responses using thematic analysis. Of 1420 potential respondents, 19.6% (n=279) completed the survey. 57% (n=159) lived in LMICs and 43% (n=120) in HICs. LMIC authors more commonly perceived first authorship as most important for their academic advancement than HIC authors (74.2% vs. 60.8%, P=0.017), while HIC authors reported last authorship as most important (25.1% vs. 38.3%, P=0.018). 65% (n=181) of respondents believed that their collaborators had been inappropriately assigned authorship positions (no difference in LMIC and HIC responses) and 32.6% (n=91) reported personally accepting inappropriate authorship positions (more common in HIC respondents, P=0.005). In qualitative data, respondents questioned the applicability of standard authorship guidelines for collaborative research conducted in LMICs. LMIC and HIC authors held different perceptions about the importance of authorship position. Reported inappropriate authorship assignment was common among both LMIC and HIC respondents. Alternatives to standard authorship criteria for research conducted in LMICs merit further studies.

How can you succeed in having your manuscript published in a medical journal. Advices to inexpert authors that can also be useful to senior authors

Young authors may benefit by some advices on how to proceed when they decide to write a manuscript and submit it to a medical journal. They should start by selecting the journal considering the topic and nature of their study, how relevant the results seem and the interest it may have in editors and readers. A reasonable choice should consider new journals that publish good papers selected after external peer review. Then they should study and follow the Instructions to Authors of the chosen journal. A strong call is given to recognize and avoid "predatory journals". Specific statements refer to Instructions to Authors and language requirements by the journal, the need to follow "ICMJE Recommendations", the correct assignment of authorship, and a strict observance of ethical regulations in biomedical and clinical research. Special mention is given to provide a good abstract, in English, either descriptive or structured depending on the nature of their study. These advices may be useful as well as a reminder to older authors on how to improve their manuscripts before submitting them to a mainstream medical journal.

The rules and realities of authorship in biomedical journals: A cautionary tale for aspiring researchers

Medical research and publications are not only important for scientific development but also vital for the professional advancement and individual academic progress. Ranking is extremely important for appointments and leadership roles. Authorship is central to the credit and responsibility in medical research and appropriate assignment of authorship carries ethical, legal as well as intellectual implications. Despite being globally established for many years, deviation from the “International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)” criteria for authorship is still seen in varying orders of magnitude and in different shapes and forms. In this communication, we revisit the latest ICMJE criteria for authorship, highlight the increasingly recognized forms of potential of authorship misconduct (intentional or unintentional) and reflect on some emerging concepts and practices in authorship attribution. The target readers are primarily young and aspiring researchers who may err due to lack of experience but also veterans who may turn complacent for political reasons.

Of Whites and men: How gender and race impact authorship of published and unpublished opinions in the US courts of appeals

While authorship assignment has been studied extensively in the US Supreme Court, relatively little is known about such decisions in the intermediate federal courts. Moreover, what we know about circuit courts relates only to published opinions (those which constitute precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis and, thus, influence policy). Little is known about authorship of less influential unpublished opinions. Distinguishing between the costs, benefits, and risks inherent in authoring published versus unpublished opinions, we develop and test theoretical expectations about how demographic characteristics of opinion assignors and assignees influence authorship across opinion type. We conduct empirical tests using an exhaustive original dataset containing all authored dispositive circuit panel opinions issued in 2012. The results reveal that White and male judges are more likely to assign White and male judges to write published opinions and less likely to assign them to write unpublished opinions. The substantive sizes of the discrepancies are somewhat modest, but our results indicate that judges from historically disadvantaged groups have fewer opportunities to shape policy and they shoulder a disproportionately larger share of the routine chore of resolving individual cases.

Compliance with research standards within gynecologic oncology fellowship: A Gynecologic Oncology Fellowship Research Network (GOFRN) study

ObjectivesParticipation in clinical and basic science research is emphasized in gynecologic oncology training. We sought to identify trends in adherence to expected research practices and reasons for non-adherence among gynecologic oncology fellows. MethodsAn anonymous 31-question online survey assessing academic behaviors, including IRB compliance, authorship assignment, data sharing, and potential barriers to non-adherence was distributed to all SGO gynecologic oncology fellow members in July 2016. Descriptive statistics and univariate analyses were performed. ResultsOf 190 members, 35.3% (n=67) responded. 73% (n=49) of respondents reported personal non-compliance and 79.1% (n=53) reported having witnessed others being non-complaint with at least one expected research practice. Areas of compliance failure included changing a research question without appropriate IRB amendment (20%; n=14), conducting research under a nonspecific IRB (13.9%; n=9), and performing research without IRB approval (6.1%; n=4). Longer institutional time for IRB approval was significantly associated with IRB non-adherence (p<0.05). First year fellows were more likely to use a nonspecific IRB (p=0.04) or expand a question without amending the IRB (p=0.04). When asked about storage of protected health information (PHI) for research, 53% reported non-secure storage with 17.1% (n=6) having done so for >1000 patients. Thirty respondents (45.5%) assigned authorship to someone who failed to meet ICMJE criteria and twelve (18.5%) accepted authorship without meeting ICMJE criteria. Most commonly cited reasons for non-adherence were: cumbersome IRB processes (80.3%), pressure from senior authors (78.8%), fear of someone else publishing first, (74.2%) and lack of support navigating appropriate research practices (71.2%). ConclusionsFellow non-compliance with expected research practices is high, particularly with regards to secure storage of PHI and appropriate authorship assignment. Time-consuming and cumbersome IRB procedures, perceived pressure from senior authors, and lack of research support contribute to non-adherence. Further support and education of gynecologic oncology fellows is needed in order to help address these barriers.

Addressing Authorship Issues Prospectively: A Heuristic Approach.

Collaborative writing in academic medicine gives rise to more richly informed scholarship, and yet challenging ethical issues surrounding authorship are commonly encountered. International guidelines on authorship help clarify whether individuals who have contributed to a completed scholarly work have been correctly included as authors, but these guidelines do not facilitate intentional and proactive authorship planning or decisions regarding authorship order.In this Commentary, the author presents a heuristic approach to help collaborators clarify, anticipate, and resolve practical and ethically important authorship issues as they engage in the process of developing manuscripts. As this approach illustrates, assignment of authorship should balance work effort and professional responsibility, reflecting the effort and intellectual contribution and the public accountability of the individuals who participate in the work. Using a heuristic approach for managing authorship issues prospectively can foster an ethical, collaborative writing process in which individuals are properly recognized for their contributions.

Editorial Note.

Editorial Note Rebecca Kukla Unlike our last couple of issues, the essays in this issue of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal are on dramatically different topics with no unifying theme. What unifies them instead is that they take up difficult issues in practical ethics that philosophers have traditionally examined abstractly, by planting them in their real-world, embodied context marked by social and material struggles and power inequalities. In his ground-breaking and richly textured paper, “The Role of Doctors in Hunger Strikes,” Yechiel Michael Barilan takes up the painful and challenging issue of when force-feeding hunger-striking prisoners in order to save their lives is ethically appropriate. To the extent that philosophers have addressed this issue, they have generally done so as a familiar and abstract conflict between respecting autonomy and paternalistic beneficence. Barilan instead argues that how we conceptualize hunger-striking as an act during wartime or political conflict will frame how we see the ethics of force-feeding. He describes three conceptual paradigms that he finds in the scholarly and policy literature, and proposes a fourth. Hunger strikes, briefly, have been understood as acts of communication, as psychiatric crises, or as violent acts designed to coerce a result. Barilan thinks each of these paradigms has its uses and limitations, and he proposes a fourth: a hunger striker may be understood as a wounded combatant, using the tools available to her or him in the face of being disabled by imprisonment. Barilan’s essay is steeped in historical detail and shows sensitivity to the enormous real-world complications of the issue, including our intense pain and revulsion at witnessing starving bodies; the physical torture involved in the actual act of force-feeding, and the compromises of capacity that can go along with food deprivation. His focus is not on giving a formula for action, but on showing us how different conceptual lenses will give us different nuanced views on this ineliminably embodied and socio-politically located issue. [End Page vii] Elise Smith examines the ethics of attributing authorship in multidisciplinary collaborations, by way of a careful theoretical analysis of the concept of authorship and the values at stake in assigning it. Her essay, “A Theoretical Foundation for the Ethical Distribution of Authorship in Multidisciplinary Publications,” begins with the point that in contemporary academic publication, assigned authorship often does not track size of contribution at all. Ghost authorship and honorary authorship are common, and different fields have different and conflicting institutional norms for assigning and ordering authors. Moreover, multidisciplinary co-authorship is increasingly the gold standard in science and medicine. While fraud in authorship is a real ethical and epistemological concern, it is by no means obvious what an ‘accurate’ or ‘honest’ assignment of authorship involves. Smith teases apart several conceptual components of authorship itself; to take just one example, there is a difference between being responsible for a claim and deserving credit for it. Using her conceptually rich and intentionally messy conceptualization of authorship, Smith identifies and defends four competing principles for proper assignment of authorship: desert, just recognition, transparency, and collegiality. Her essay addresses a topic of both ethical and epistemological significance. In “A Defense of The-Risks-of-Daily-Life,” Ariella Binik examines possible standards of acceptable risk for participants in pediatric research that offers no direct medical benefit. This standard has been hotly contested for the last couple of decades. This is so particularly in light of cases such as the Kennedy Krieger Institute Lead Paint Study, in which many felt that the risk posed to children—especially vulnerable children from poor, overwhelmingly Black families—was unacceptably high, while the judge hearing the case famously imposed what many felt was a standard of acceptable risk that was unreasonably stringent. Binik analyzes several contenders for an acceptable risk standard, and ends up defending the view that the risks should be no more than those faced in the daily life of children who are flourishing and not unduly burdened. However, she rejects the traditional defense of such a standard, which appeals to reasonable risk trade-offs and the argument that such a standard prevents participants’ risk level from being raised by participating. Instead, she argues...

Autoria científica: por que tanta polêmica?

Os critérios para autoria científica ainda carecem de consenso entre cientistas, dando margem a especulações que, algumas vezes, apenas justificam o injustificável. Neste texto, meu foco é na ciência empírica e eu proponho que participações em coleta de dados (CD) ou fornecimento de recursos materiais (RM) para a pesquisa não são condições suficientes, nem necessárias, para se atribuir autoria em textos científicos. Após apresentar as bases teóricas dessa proposta, mostro dados que indicam que essas bases têm sido usadas em magnitude ampla na ciência internacional, o que torna o debate ainda mais relevante. Ao final proponho separar as participações na pesquisa científica em autoria, colaboração e agradecimento, de forma a valorizar cada grupo de atuação, sem perder suas peculiaridades. São elas: autoria, colaboração e agradecimento. Scientific authorship: why so much controversy?Criteria for scientific authorship still lack of universal consensus among scientists, thus rising speculations that, sometimes, only justify the unjustifiable. In this text, my focus is the empirical science and I propose that participation in data collection (DC) or provision of material resources (MR) for the research are neither sufficient, nor necessary, conditions to warrant authorship in scientific texts. After presenting the main theoretical bases of my argument, I show some data supporting that such participations (DC and/or MR) have been largely used for assignment of scientific authorship in the international literature, thus making this debate more relevant. Finally, I propose separate the participation in a scientific study in three classes: authorship, collaboration and acknowledgements, thus valorizing each of these participations, but not contradicting its peculiarities in the process of building scientific knowledge. keywords: Authorship; Scientific Publication; Scientific Knowledge.

Notice of Retraction: Sato Y, et al. Effect of Folate and Mecobalamin on Hip Fractures in Patients With Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 2005;293(9):1082-1088.

In reaffirming our previous Expression of Concern,1 the article “Effect of Folate and Mecobalamin on Hip Fractures in Patients With Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial” by Sato et al2 has been retracted due to acknowledgment of scientific misconduct resulting in concerns regarding data integrity and inappropriate assignment of authorship.

Authorship in a multicenter clinical trial: The Heart Failure—A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training (HF-ACTION) Authorship and Publication (HAP) Scoring System Results

Few guidelines exist regarding authorship on manuscripts resulting from large multicenter trials. The HF-ACTION investigators devised a system to address assignment of authorship on trial publications and tested the outcomes in the course of conducting the large, multicenter, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-funded trial (n = 2,331; 82 clinical sites; 3 countries). The HF-ACTION Authorship and Publication (HAP) scoring system was designed to enhance rate of dissemination, recognize investigator contributions to the successful conduct of the trial, and harness individual expertise in manuscript generation. The HAP score was generated by assigning points based on investigators' participation in trial enrollment, follow-up, and adherence, as well as participation in committees and other trial activity. Overall publication rates, publication rates by author, publication rates by site, and correlation between site publication and HAP score using a Poisson regression model were examined. Fifty peer-reviewed, original manuscripts were published within 6.5 years after conclusion of study enrollment. In total, 137 different authors were named in at least 1 publication. Forty-five (55%) of the 82 sites had an author named to at least 1 article. A Poisson regression model examining incident rate ratios revealed that a higher HAP score resulted in a higher incidence of a manuscript, with a 100-point increase in site score corresponding to an approximately 32% increase in the incidence of a published article. Given the success in publishing a large number of manuscripts and widely distributing authorship, regular use of a transparent, objective authorship assignment system for publishing results from multicenter trials may be recommended to optimize fairness and dissemination of trial results.

Scientific ethics and publishing conduct

The publishing conduct of scientists is increasingly becoming the object of science-based ethical considerations. Studies have shown that questionable publishing conduct is not a rare phenomenon in this area. National and international scientific organisations are making recommendations about appropriate scientific publishing conduct and, in doing so, are referring to universal ethical principles. A number of science-related ethical norms, for example the prohibition to fabricate or manipulate data, can be justified for all sciences by the goal of knowledge and common epistemological assumptions. On the other hand, other science-related ethical norms, such as rules governing the assignment of authorship and the prohibition of plagiarism, can be justified by means of a science-specific incentive mechanism, which was only explicitly analysed for the first time in detail by Merton (The sociology of science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 286–324, 1957/1973): the attainment of recognition in the scientific community through published original articles on scientific progress. Particularly in conjunction with forms of remuneration based on this, this incentive mechanism leads to the temptation to make one’s own contribution to the development of science greater than is actually justified.

A Statement about Authorship from Individual Members of the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiology Departments

q RSNA, 2013 There has been much recent discussion (1,2) about what constitutes appropriate authorship for scientific articles. Indeed, recent exposes in the press and elsewhere about “gift,” “honorary,” and even “ghost” authorship have led to lawsuits, other forms of litigation, and the ruin of the careers of some dedicated health professionals. In many cases, improper assignment of authorship is due to naivety or oversight; but in some cases, it is undertaken knowingly and, at worst, for ultimate financial gain. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has issued stringent guidelines for appropriate assignment of authorship and other aspects of scientific publications (3). These guidelines also deal with issues concerning redundant publications. The following members of the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD) have personally attested their support for the ICMJE criteria for authorship and are determined to ensure that colleagues in their department/institution/working group adhere to them fully.

Ethics and professionalism in medical physics: A survey of AAPM members

To assess current education, practices, attitudes, and perceptions pertaining to ethics and professionalism in medical physics. A link to a web-based survey was distributed to the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) e-mail membership list, with a follow-up e-mail sent two weeks later. The survey included questions about ethics/professionalism education, direct personal knowledge of ethically questionable practices in clinical care, research, education (teaching and mentoring), and professionalism, respondents' assessment of their ability to address ethical/professional dilemmas, and demographics. For analysis, reports of unethical or ethically questionable practices or behaviors by approximately 40% or more of respondents were classified as "frequent." Partial or complete responses were received from 18% (1394/7708) of AAPM members. Overall, 60% (827/1377) of the respondents stated that they had not received ethics/professionalism education during their medical physics training. Respondents currently in training were more likely to state that they received instruction in ethics/professionalism (80%, 127/159) versus respondents who were post-training (35%, 401/1159). Respondents' preferred method of instruction in ethics/professionalism was structured periodic discussions involving both faculty and students/trainees. More than 90% (1271/1384) supported continuing education in ethics/professionalism and 75% (1043/1386) stated they would attend ethics/professionalism sessions at professional/scientific meetings. In the research setting, reports about ethically questionable authorship assignment were frequent (approximately 40%) whereas incidents of ethically questionable practices about human subjects protections were quite infrequent (5%). In the clinical setting, there was frequent recollection of incidents regarding lack of training, resources and skills, and error/incident reporting. In the educational setting, incidents of unethical or ethically questionable practices were only frequently recollected with respect to mentorship/guidance. With respect to professional conduct, favoritism, hostile work/learning environment, and maltreatment of subordinates and colleagues were frequently reported. A significantly larger proportion of women reported experiences with hostile work/learning environments, favoritism, poor mentorship, unfairness in educational settings, and concerns about student privacy and confidentiality. The survey found broad interest in ethics/professionalism topics and revealed that these topics were being integrated into the curriculum at many institutions. The incorporation of ethics and professionalism instruction into both graduate education and postgraduate training of medical physicists, and into their subsequent lifelong continuing education is important given the nontrivial number of medical physicists who had direct personal knowledge of unethical or ethically questionable incidents in clinical practice, research, education, and professionalism.