Responsibility Of Authors Research Articles

Activity for CUREs to increase student understanding and application of responsible authorship and publication practices.

Professional development of scientists is enhanced by training students in responsible conduct of research earlier in their careers. One aspect of responsible conduct of research is authorship ethics, which concerns granting of credit to those who make intellectual contributions to the research. The activity discussed in this article emphasizes how authorship ethics can be integrated with Course-based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) and includes an adaption that could also be used for independent research students. The activity allows students to reflect upon inequalities and problems seen in scientific authorship, including gender bias, failure to credit effort (ghostwriters), and inclusion of authors that did not meaningfully contribute to the work (honorary/gift authorship). Themes seen in student reflections on how they could demonstrate ethics in authorship included: determining authorship by contribution, appropriate attributions on curriculum vitas (CV) and posters, different credit levels, understanding authorship criteria, and tracking contributions. Themes seen in student reflections on the importance of authorship were proper authorship credit distribution, authorship impacting career opportunities, and accountability in research. In the activity, students also created attributions for a poster to be presented from their research. We found that most students were able to create attributions that were correctly formatted, included the same authors, and positioned authors in the same order as other group members, matching what was presented on the finalized poster. We found that students' reflection on authorship and this professionalization of their activities in their CURE led to modest increases in their view of themselves as scientists.

Pembelajaran Komputer Dasar Untuk Siswa Kelas 5 di SDN 1 Cempaka

The contents of this report summarize the author's experiences and contributions during the implementation of analyzing activities in Cempaka Village, Talun District, Cirebon City. This KKN activity is a representation of students' commitment to society through providing empowerment support, training and counseling which was carried out for about one month, from 15 July to 19 August 2023. This report describes the author's responsibilities and personal journey in various community service activities. z. We as KKN students carry out our responsibility to provide community service, one of which is by providing basic computer training to students at SDN 1 Cempaka. Technology is increasingly developing and the use of technology must be introduced to students as early as possible with the aim of making students know and learn more about computers.

Ethics of research

Ethics of research

The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts

In this article, we discuss ethical issues related to using and disclosing artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT and other systems based on large language models (LLMs), to write or edit scholarly manuscripts. Some journals, such as Science, have banned the use of LLMs because of the ethical problems they raise concerning responsible authorship. We argue that this is not a reasonable response to the moral conundrums created by the use of LLMs because bans are unenforceable and would encourage undisclosed use of LLMs. Furthermore, LLMs can be useful in writing, reviewing and editing text, and promote equity in science. Others have argued that LLMs should be mentioned in the acknowledgments since they do not meet all the authorship criteria. We argue that naming LLMs as authors or mentioning them in the acknowledgments are both inappropriate forms of recognition because LLMs do not have free will and therefore cannot be held morally or legally responsible for what they do. Tools in general, and software in particular, are usually cited in-text, followed by being mentioned in the references. We provide suggestions to improve APA Style for referencing ChatGPT to specifically indicate the contributor who used LLMs (because interactions are stored on personal user accounts), the used version and model (because the same version could use different language models and generate dissimilar responses, e.g., ChatGPT May 12 Version GPT3.5 or GPT4), and the time of usage (because LLMs evolve fast and generate dissimilar responses over time). We recommend that researchers who use LLMs: (1) disclose their use in the introduction or methods section to transparently describe details such as used prompts and note which parts of the text are affected, (2) use in-text citations and references (to recognize their used applications and improve findability and indexing), and (3) record and submit their relevant interactions with LLMs as supplementary material or appendices.

IRANIAN NATIONALISM AND THE ISSUE OF AZERBAIJAN AND THE TURKISH LANGUAGE (EMPHASIZING ON PERIODICALS OF TRANSITION ERA FROM QAJAR TO PAHLAVI)

Modern İran Tarihinde bu ülkede yaşayan azınlık durumundaki çeşitli unsurların ulus devlet inşası sürecindeki durumları yaygın bir tartışma ve araştırma konusu olagelmiştir. Başta Türkler ve Araplar olmak üzere Kürt, Beluç ve Lor gibi çeşitli toplulukların yaşadığı İran coğrafyasında 20. yüzyılın başlarına kadar ‘’Memaliki Mahruse’’ şeklinde ifade edilen ve bir tür eyalet sistemi biçimine sahip olan bir idare sistemi hakimdi. Bu sistem içerisinde her topluluk kendi kültürel varlığını korumakta ve idame ettirmekteydi. Rıza Şah dönemiyle birlikte fikri temeli özellikle meşrutiyet sonrası dönemle birlikte atılmaya başlamış olan ulus inşası, tasarım sürecinden uygulama sürecine konulmuştur. Fikri arka planı önceki dönemlerde atılmaya başlanmış olsa da keskin bir geçiş dönemi olarak nitelendirilebilecek bu dönemde tasarlanan örnek kimlik karşısında ‘’öteki’’nin tanımlanması birçok tartışma ve sorunu da beraberinde getirmiştir. Çevirisini yaptığımız bu makalede, söz konusu ulus inşa sürecinde öne çıkan İran milliyetçiliğinin önemli fikri önderlerinden bazılarının kaleme aldığı yazılar çerçevesinde İran milliyetçilik düşüncesinde ‘’öteki’’ konumuna itilen Türklerin durumu mercek altına alınmaktadır. Bu dönemde ‘’Aryan Milliyetçiliği’’ ve ‘’Fars Dili’’ ekseninde inşa edilmek istenen İran ulusal kimliği, içerik olarak özellikle İslam öncesi İran tarihini sahiplenirken İslami dönem ise çeşitli açılardan sorgulamaya tabi tutulmuştur. Bu bağlamda özellikle İran’ın son bin yıllık tarihi döneminde idari ve askeri açıdan baskın konumda bulunan Türkler, ülkenin geri kalmışlığının da müsebbipleri olarak öne çıkarıldılar. İran milliyetçileri tarafından ideolojik kaygılarla ve indirgemeci bir anlayışla ele alınan bu mesele özellikle I. Dünya Savaşı ve sonrasında bölgede yaşanan çeşitli gelişmeler neticesinde varoluşsal bir sorun olarak telakki edildi. Bu açıdan Osmanlı’nın son dönemlerinde İttihat ve Terakki’nin bölgedeki faaliyetleri ve yine Azerbaycan Cumhuriyeti’nin Rusya’dan bağımsızlığını kazanması gibi hadiseler İran milliyetçilerini endişelendirmekte ve onları bu iki siyasi yapı karşısında İran’ın bütünlüğünü koruma kaygısıyla yeni argümanlar üretmeye sevk etmekteydi. Bu çerçevede İran milliyetçilerinin konuya yaklaşımları görmezden gelme ve asimile etme yönünde bir anlayışa dayanmaktaydı. Onlara göre İran’daki Türklerin Türkiye ve Azerbaycan Cumhuriyeti Türkleriyle bağları bulunmuyordu. Türk dili ise İran’a sonradan yağmacılar tarafından dayatılmıştı. Artık her şey aslına rücu etmeli ve Fars dili ve Aryan medeniyeti yeniden bu topraklarda yaygınlaştırılmalıydı. Bu ve buna benzer fikirler İran milliyetçileri tarafından ‘’Ayendeh’’, ‘’İranşehr’’, ‘’Kaveh’’ ve ‘’Name-i Ferengistan’’ gibi dergilerde sürekli bir biçimde işlenen konular arasındaydı. Nasır Sıdkî’nin sorumlu yazarlığında Tebriz Üniversitesi öğretim üyeleri tarafından kaleme alınan bu çalışma İran milliyetçisi aydınların Türk, Türklük ve Azerbaycan’da Türk dili gibi meselelere olan yaklaşımlarını ele almakta ve yine sahip oldukları yaklaşımın gerekçelerine dair tespitler ortaya konulmaktadır. Buna göre Osmanlı’nın bölgedeki faaliyetleri ve Azerbaycan Cumhuriyeti’nin kurulması İran milliyetçilerinin İran Azerbaycan’ına karşı hassas bir yaklaşıma sahip olmalarına yol açmıştır.

What is Global Health Equity? A Proposed Definition.

The term “global health equity” has become more visible in recent years, yet we were unable to find a formal definition of the term. Our Viewpoint addresses this gap by offering a discussion of this need and proposing a definition. We define global health equity as mutually beneficial and power-balanced partnerships and processes leading to equitable human and environmental health outcomes (which we refer to as “products”) on a global scale. Equitable partnerships actively work against racism and supremacy. Such partnerships foster processes with these same dynamics; for example, sharing lead authorship responsibilities with meaningful roles for host country researchers to frame relevant questions and to provide context and interpretation for the research findings. Equitable products, such as access to technology and tailored delivery of interventions effective in the specific context, are the fruits of these partnerships and processes.

Creative Approach as a Teaching Proposal to Develop the Digital Literacy

The study presents the creative approach as a teaching proposal for digital learners in formal learning spaces. An environment where the student perceives himself as a citizen in the individual sphere, in the collective, and in the cultural environment, in which the appropriation of knowledge is impacted by cultural aspects and their surroundings. The learning elements form a link between digital technologies, pro9grammatic content, and the guidelines of the national normative document, contemplating the needs of 21st-century learners. The creative approach aims to awaken the student’s interest in their learning process, assuming the responsibility of authorship guided by the teacher through cooperation and interaction practices. Thus, we have applications incorporated into the appropriation of knowledge that allow us to understand and master the codified digital language underlying the cyberculture with the ability to create and develop as global citizen.

Responsible Authorship: A Herculean Task

Not available

Multiple co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors: a synthesis of shared authorship credit

PurposeAuthorship is the ultimate status of intellectual recognition in academic publishing. Although fairly robust guidelines have already been in place for a considerable amount of time regarding authorship criteria and credit, such as those by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or Contributor Roles Taxonomy, the lack of reliable verification techniques hamper their accuracy, thereby reducing the validity of authorship claims in such statements. This paper aims to focus on the authorship status and responsibilities of co-first authors and co-corresponding authors.Design/methodology/approachTo appreciate authorship responsibilities in this subset of authors, the broader academic authorship literature, as well as position statements, rules and guidelines, were consulted.FindingsAcademic publishing that relies on metrics is a global multi-billion-dollar business, so strict measures to assess and confirm authorship, which can be intellectually or financially “profitable” among academics that game such metrics, are needed. The current assessment is that there are inconsistent rules for equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. In shared and collaborative authorship, there are also shared authorship-related responsibilities, but these are infrequently discussed, or tend to only be dealt with broadly.Originality/valueWithin the wider, and important, discussion about authorship, which is one of the most central issues in academic publishing, there has been a limited focus on equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. This paper expands and fortifies that discussion.

AUTHORSHIP MALPRACTICES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Although the variety of research malpractices in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is similar to those documented in developed nations, authorship misuse and related issues appear to be more prevalent in the former. This article focuses on some authorship-related topics in LMIC, namely authorship disputes, excessive co-authorship and monetary incentives, authorship issues in student-mentor relationships, and authorship patterns in North-South collaborations. Universities and official bodies in LMIC must supervise the integrity of the whole research process, provide instructions on responsible research and authorship, set up the required postgraduate training programs, foster good role models in authorship, and designate an ombudsperson to advice and respond to complaints of researchers, especially students and junior faculty. Lastly, a recent framework that combines descriptive and normative elements and then uses proper metaphors to achieve an ethical definition of authorship useful in international settings is highlighted.

Authorship Not Taught and Not Caught in Undergraduate Research Experiences at a Research University

This grounded study investigated the negotiation of authorship by faculty members, graduate student mentors, and their undergraduate protégés in undergraduate research experiences at a private research university in the northeastern United States. Semi-structured interviews using complementary scripts were conducted separately with 42 participants over a 3year period to probe their knowledge and understanding of responsible authorship and publication practices and learn how faculty and students entered into authorship decision-making intended to lead to the publication of peer-reviewed technical papers. Herein the theoretical model for the negotiation of authorship developed through the analysis of these interviews is reported. The model identifies critical causal and intervening conditions responsible for the coping strategies faculty and students employ, which, in our study, appear to often produce unfortunate consequences for all involved. The undergraduate student researchers and their graduate student mentors interviewed in this study exhibited a limited understanding of authorship and the requirements for authorship in their research groups. The power differential between faculty and students, the students' limited epistemic development, the busy-ness of the faculty, and the faculty's failure to prioritize authorship have been identified as key factors inhibiting both undergraduate and graduate students from developing a deeper understanding of responsible authorship and publication practices. Implications for graduate education and undergraduate research are discussed, and strategies for helping all students to develop a deeper understanding of authorship are identified.

Authors overestimate their contribution to scientific work, demonstrating a strong bias

Teamwork is an essential component of science. It affords the exchange of ideas and the execution of research that can entail high levels of complexity and scope. Collaborative science also leads to higher-impact publications relative to single-authored research projects (1). Published articles are a key product of scientific work, bearing considerable impact on researchers' academic stances and scientific reputations (2). As such, determination of the relative contribution of each coauthor to the collaborative work is of much significance, and is often reflected in the order of the authorship byline or in comments describing the differential contribution of each of the coauthors to the article (3). Authors often have an outsized estimate of their contributions to a given paper. Image credit: Dave Cutler (artist). Although the scientific community is aware of the challenges associated with accrediting relative contribution in multiauthored papers (4) and scientific journals have developed guidelines to promote more responsible authorship allocation (5⇓–7), almost any researcher who has published a coauthored article is well-aware of the emotional and political undercurrents associated with sorting out the relative contribution to a publication. While previous work has concentrated on elucidating the problems associated with credit allocation (8⇓–10) and on developing quantitative tools to determine degree of contribution (4, 11), scholars have not studied authors' subjective evaluations of their own and their coauthors' contributions to coauthored publications. Biased perception of the magnitude of one’s own relative to others’ contribution to scientific work can set the stage for dissatisfaction, disputes, and setbacks to collaborative work. Our research has found that, regardless of an author’s placement in the order of article authorship, most authors possess deep-rooted biases regarding how much they’ve actually contributed to a collaborative work. Psychological research has delineated the existence of self-serving biases in … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: herz.noa{at}gmail.com. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

Perish or Publish Dilemma: Challenges to Responsible Authorship.

Controversies related to the concept and practice of responsible authorship and its misuse have been among the most prominent issues discussed in the recent literature on research integrity. Therefore, this paper aims to address the factors that lead to two major types of unethical authorship, namely, honorary and ghost authorship. It also highlights negative consequences of authorship misuse and provides a critical analysis of different authorship guidelines, including a recent debate on the amendments of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship definition. Empirical studies revealed that honorary authorship was the most prevalent deviation from the responsible authorship standards. Three different modalities of honorary authorship were distinguished: gift authorship, guest authorship, and coercive authorship. Prevalence of authorship misuse worldwide and in Europe was alarmingly high, covering approximately one third of all scientific publications. No significant differences were reported in authorship misuse between different health research disciplines. The studies conducted in North America highlighted the most effective means to cope with unethical authorship. These were training in publishing ethics, clear authorship policies developed by medical schools, and explicit compliance with the authorship criteria required by the medical journals. In conclusion, more empirical research is needed to raise awareness of the high prevalence of authorship misuse among scientists. Research integrity training courses, including publication ethics and authorship issues should be integrated into the curricula for students and young researchers in medical schools. Last but not least, further discussion on responsible authorship criteria and practice should be initiated.

Right of authorship, and responsibility of authorship

Right of authorship, and responsibility of authorship

Abstract SY31-03: Reuse of genomics data and lessons for cancer research

Abstract Making data and materials used in scientific research available to others is not only a prerequisite for enabling reproducible science and maximizing the return on funding, it is also the very basis of scientific progress, allowing other scientists to build on the previous work of their colleagues (1). In life sciences this principle has been well established since the 1980s, when scientific journals started making it a requirement, that X-ray crystallography and DNA sequence data supporting publications must be deposited in appropriate databases. In 1996, as a part of the Human Genome Project, it was agreed that all the sequence data would be released in publicly accessible databases within twenty-four hours after generation, known as Bermuda principles (2). With advent of new types of data, such as microarray data, it was soon recognized that not only the sequence or microarray data are important, but also the standards how these data are represented and the information about the samples and experiments (3). However, to enable data sharing, a properly built and funded infrastructure is needed (4). Without public data resources, such as Ensembl, UniProt, and Expression Atlas, that add value to molecular data archives, modern life sciences research would be hard to imagine (5-7). The data-sharing mentality is now so firmly embedded in the ethos of life sciences that scientists working in the field struggle to imagine that in other science disciplines the mentality may be different. Data sharing in medical research is a more complex and difficult problem due to multiple reasons, including the need for data security and the patient's confidentiality, complexity of representing health records, and diversity of national legislations. However, there is also an increasing realization that sharing biomedical research data, which is now facilitated by the use of electronic health records, can be an important accelerator of biomedical research (7). Cancer researchers are at the forefront of the data-sharing approach in biomedical research. The International Cancer Genome Consortium is completing the sequencing of genomes, transcriptomes, and epigenomes of over 20,000 patients, making all the data alongside the essential clinical information available to researchers (8). About 10% of these genomes and transcriptomes have been reanalyzed in a standardized way by the Pan-cancer Analysis of the Whole Genomes (PCAWG) group. The PCAWG project provides an important demonstration how data integration can accelerate biomedical research. In this talk I will particularly concentrate on lessons learned from integration of genome, transcriptome, and clinical data of this project. Although at the time of writing this abstract, some of the PCAWG transcriptome analysis is still being finalized, it is already clear that integrating heterogeneous types of data from heterogeneous cancer types provides new insights about this disease, and also that such integrative analysis is challenging (9-13). I will also describe some of the experience in building infrastructure for data integration and sharing at the European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) and some of the data resources provided by EMBL-EBI (14,15), particularly concentrating on cancer genomics data and the benefits that data sharing brings to cancer research.

Information for authors and editorial policies

Information for authors and editorial policies

Travelling Concepts in J. M. Coetzee’s Apartheid and Post-apartheid Novels

Nobel-prize winner John Maxwell Coetzee is considered one of the most controversial novelists and essayists in South African literature. He witnessed two crucial eras in South Africa: apartheid and post-apartheid. Being a white author put him in a difficult situation when he began expressing his ideas on political and social issues in his country during times of conflict. Critics see that Coetzee’s apartheid novels are evasively indirect when they comment on the prevalence of injustice in South Africa. Coetzee defended his position as a writer who rejected realism as a fixed norm for fictional representation, favouring an allegorical depiction of resistance against oppression. In his post-apartheid novels, however, there seems to be a shift in his mode of writing as he resorts more to realism to comment on the switch of balance and power in South Africa. Moreover, his apartheid allegories experience a similar change where they gain new dimensions and perform different functions in the post-apartheid context. This sudden modification in Coetzee’s novelistic practice has always perplexed his readers and critics as well. He has been accused of being an elusive writer who avoids any specific political orientation. Take as an example his apartheid novel Life and Times of Michael K (1983), which is considered an allegorical representation of resistance against oppression and injustice; where the silence of the colonized protagonist Michael K stands as an allegory of peaceful resistance rather than submission. On the contrary, his post-apartheid novel Disgrace (1999) adopts an opposite novelistic approach where realism stands out clearly, while allegory recedes. The silenced this time is not the colonized but the former colonizer and thus silence becomes an allegory of atonement rather than resistance. Nevertheless, Coetzee’s bewildering and allegedly paradoxical mode of writing can be explained when the two novels are read in the light of his talk ‘The Novel Today’, which is an articulation of the responsibilities of authorship. The aim of the paper is to use Edward Said’s ‘Traveling Theory’ to trace the origins or genesis of Coetzee’s concepts and ideas of authorship, which are expressed in his talk and practiced in his apartheid novel Life and Times of Michael K, and then to follow up the changes and developments that occurred in his mode of writing after these concepts and ideas travel to the new context of the post-apartheid era as manifested in his novel Disgrace. Finally, the paper provides a theoretically-based perspective that establishes Coetzee’s critical consciousness as the norm for his authorship and thus denies the accusations levelled against him of being ambivalent and paradoxical.

“[P]lain and passive fortitude”: Stoicism and Spaces of Dissent in Sejanus

In Ben Jonson's Sejanus, performed at court in the first year of King James’ reign in 1603, Arruntius seemingly figures as “Jonson's spokesperson.” While lauding the moral responsibility of Arruntius, some critics have portrayed the Senator as a passive Stoic whose “only outlet is speech.” For a poet who emphasizes the moral and didactic responsibility of authorship, why, then, does his spokesman inhabit a peripheral space in criticism? Critical interpretation of Arruntius depends on the editorial decision to render many of Arruntius’ lines as asides or as public critique, and this editorial crux is examined vis-à-vis early modern attitudes toward public engagement. I argue that the play negotiates the tensions between the patient Neostoicism of Justus Lipsius and politically active Senecan Stoicism. Arruntius navigates those tensions through Ciceronian ideals of friendship, which provide an alternative to the rampant flattery and tyranny at Tiberius’ court. I show that the play responds to larger political anxieties concerning James I's recent ascension to the throne, and that interpreting early modern Stoicism as entirely passive disregards the complex discourse of friendship that permeates the period.

Revise the ICMJE Recommendations regarding authorship responsibility!

Key points A clear set of rules regarding authorship responsibilities in academic publications is much needed. The leading research integrity guidelines on scientific authorship, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations, are unclear about authorship responsibilities in case of misconduct. The source of the problem is the fourth authorship criterion – it should be revised.

Information for authors and editorial policies

Information for authors and editorial policies