Authorship Issues and Conflict in the U.S. Academic Chemical Community

REFERENCES

• American Chemical Society. 2006. Ethical guidelines to publication of chemical research. http://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1218054468605/ethics.pdf. ( accessed June 5, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, M. S., E. C. Oju, and T. M. R. Falkner. 2001a. Findings from the Acadia Institute graduate education study. Science and Engineering Ethics 7:487–503.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, M. S., E. C. Oju, and T. M. R. Falkner. 2001b. Help from Faculty: Findings from the Acadia Institute Graduate Education Study. Science and Engineering Ethics 7:487–503.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, M. S. (2007). Commentary: Collective openness and other recommendations for the promotion of research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics 13: 387–394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anonymous. 2011. Update on the Requirement for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research (Notice Number: NOT-OCD-10-019). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html. ( accessed June 5, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Anonymous reviewer. 2015. 
   Google Scholar
• Ariely, D. 2009. Predictably Irrational. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
   Google Scholar
• Bird, S. J. 1997. Authorship under review. Science and Engineering Ethics 3:35–236.
   Google Scholar
• Bird, S. J. 2001. Mentors, advisors and supervisors. Science and Engineering Ethics 7:455–468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borgatti, S. P., M. G. Everett, and L. C. Freeman. 1999. UCINEDT 6.0 Version 1.00. UCINEDT 6.0 Version 1.00. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, E. A., and L. A. Bero 2007. Defining Financial Conflicts and Managing Research Relationships: An Analysis of University Conflict of Interest Committee Decisions. Science and Engineering Ethics 13:415–435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown-Wright, D. A., D. A. Dubick, and I. Newman. 1997. Graduate assistant expectation and faculty perceptions: Implications for mentoring and training. Journal of College Student Development. 38:410–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claxton, L. D. 2005a. Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutation Research. 589:17–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claxton, L. D. 2005b. Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutation Mutation Research. 589:31–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claxton, L. D. 2007. A review of conflict of interest, competing interest, and bias for toxicologists. Toxicology and Industrial Health 23:557–571.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clement, T. P. 2014. Authorship Matrix: A Rational Approach to Quantify Individual Contributions and Responsibilities in Multi-Author Scientific Articles. Science and Engineering Ethics 20:345–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, M.B., E. Tarnow, and B. R. De Young. 2004. Coauthorship in pathology, a comparison with physics and a survey-generated and member-preferred authorship guideline. Medscape General Medicine 6:13.
   Google Scholar
• Coppola, B. P. 2002. Treating graduate students with dignity. Chronicle Higher Ed. (August 9).
   Google Scholar
• Davis, M. S., K. L. Webster, and B. King. 2008. Narcissism, entitlement, and questionable practices of research in counseling: A pilot study. Journal of Counseling & Development 86:200–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donohue, M. D., and R. R. Kilburg. 2014. Academic Leadership. In What You Need for the First Job, Besides the Ph.D., Benvenuto, M. ed. American Chemical Society. DC: Washington.
   Google Scholar
• Flanagin, A., L. A. Carey, P. B. Fontanarosa, S. G. Philips, B. P. Pace, G. D. Lundberg, and D. Rennie. 1998. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association. 280:222–224.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foo, J. Y. A. 2011. A Retrospective Analysis of 10-Year Authorship Trends in Biomedical Engineering Journals. Accountability in Research. 18:91–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, P. J. 1997. Commentary on “A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science”. Science and Engineering Ethics 3:234–248.
   Google Scholar
• Gingras, Y., and P.-M. Gosselin. 2008. The Emergence and Evolution of the Expression ‘‘Conflict of Interests’’ in Science: A Historical Overview, 1880–2006. Science and Engineering Ethics 14: 337–343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gori, G. B. 2009. Conflict of interest and public policy. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 53:159–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, S. S. 1998. Lethal chemistry at Harvard. New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/29/magazine/lethal-chemistry-at-harvard.html?n=Top/Reference/TimesTopics/Subjects/C/CollegesandUniversities&pagewanted=1. ( accessed June 5, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, R. 2015. Tension in chemistry and its contents. Accountability Research 22: 330–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• House, M. C., and J. I. Seeman. 2010. Credit and Authorship Practices. Educational and Environmental Influences. Accountability in Research. 17 223–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. 2010. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html. ( accessed June 5, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Kalichman, M., M. Sweet, and D. Plemmons. 2014a. Standards of Scientific Conduct: Are There Any? Science and Engineering Ethics 20:885–896.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalichman, M., M. Sweet, and D. Plemmons. 2014b. Standards of Scientific Conduct: Disciplinary Differences. Science and Engineering Ethics 20:885–896.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keith-Spiegel, P., G. P. Koocher, and J. Sieber. 2009. Abstract: What do researchers do when they observe or learn about irresponsible science? Office of Research Integrity Newsletter 15: 4.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, D. 2003. Multiple authors, multiple problems. Science 301:733.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koocher, G., and Keith-Spiegel, P. 2010. Peers nip misconduct in the bud. Nature 466:438–440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krstić, S. B. 2014. Research Integrity Practices from the Perspective of Early-Career Researchers. Science and Engineering Ethics 20: in press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhar, M. J. 2008. On blacklisting in science. Science and Engineering Ethics 14:301–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhar, M. J. 2009. Blacklisting among scientists. Synapse 63:539–540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhar, M. J., and D. Cross. 2013. Collegial Ethics: Supporting Our Colleagues. Science and Engineering Ethics 19:677–684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laszlo, P. 2010. Quality information from the grapevine. Ambix 57: 202–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, K., Brownstein, R. G. Mills, and I. S. Kohane. 2010. Does Collocation Inform the Impact of Collaboration? PLoS One 5(e14279): 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Louis, K. S., M. S. Anderson, and L. Rosenberg. 1995. Academic misconduct and values: The department’s influence. The Review of Higher Education 18:393–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubalin, J. 1996. Survey of Accused but Exonerated Individuals in Research Misconduct Cases. Final Report. Rockville, MD: Office of Research Integrity, National Institutes of Health.
   Google Scholar
• Lubalin, J., M. E. Ardinid, and J. L. Matheson. 1995. Consequences of whistleblowing for the whistleblower in misconduct in science cases. Final Report. Report prepared for the Office of Research Integrity by the Research Triangle Institute. http://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/final.pdf. ( accessed June 5, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, C., and B. Williams-Jones. 2009. Supervisor-student relations: Examining the spectrum of conflicts of interest in bioscience laboratories. Accountability in Research 16:106–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macrina, F. L. 2007. Scientific Societies and Promotion of the Responsible Conduct of Research: Codes, Policies, and Education. Academic Medicine 82: 65–869
   Google Scholar
• Macrina, F. L. 2014. Scientific Integrity. Washington, DC: ASM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Magee, J. C., and A. D. Galinsky. 2008. Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status. The Academy of Management Annals 2: 351–398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mainous III, A. G., M. A. Bowman, and J. S Zoller. 2002. THe importance of interpersonal relationship factors in decisions regarding authorship. Family. Medicine 34:462–467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malek, J. 2010. To Tell or Not to Tell? The Ethical Dilemma of the Would-Be Whistleblower. Accountability in Research. 17: 115–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marušić, A., L. Bošnjak, and A. Jerončić. 2011. A Systematic Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines. PLoS one 6 (September): 1-17 (e23477).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merton, R. K. 1969. Behavior patterns of scientists. American Scientist 57:1–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merton, R. K. 1973. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mirkin, C. A., S.-J. Park, J. J. Storhoff, and T. A Taton. 2001. Addendum. Langmuir 17:5977.
   Google Scholar
• Moffatt, B. 2011. Responsible Authorship: Why Researchers Must Forgo Honorary Authorship. Accountability in Research 18:76–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moffatt, B. 2013. Orphan Papers and Ghostwriting: The Case against the ICMJE Criterion of Authorship. Accountability in Research 20:59–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, B. 2014. Eminent organic chemists videos. https://www.organicdivision.org/ama/orig/EminentOrganicChemists/link/montgomery.html. ( accessed June 5, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Nadis, S. 1998. Suicide highlights graduate student woes. Nature 395:826.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institutes of Health (NIH). 2011. Responsible conduct of research. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html. ( accessed June 5, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation. 2009a. Responsible conduct of research. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-08-20/html/E9-19930.htm. ( accessed June 5, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• National Science Foundation. 2009b. Responsible conduct of research (RCR). http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rcr.jsp. ( accessed June 5, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Near, J.P., and M. P. Miceli. 1995. Effective whistle-blowing. Academy of Management Review. 20: 679–708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichardt, T. 2014. Faculty Interviews - Department of Chemistry, Princeton University: https://vimeo.com/channels/puchemfaculty. ( accessed June 5, 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Rennie, D. 1997. Commentary on “A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science”. Science and Engineering Ethics 3:257–259.
   Google Scholar
• Rennie, D., V. Yank, and L. Emanuel. 1997. When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. Journal of the American Medical Association. 278:579–585.
   Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B. 1997. A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science. Science and Engineering Ethics 3:237–243.
   Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B., S. Peddada, and W. Jr. Brunson. 2009. Research misconduct policies of scientific journals. Accountability in Research. 16:254–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B., and A. E. Shamoo. 2011. The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. Accountability in Research. 18:71–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritter, S. 2001. Who has the right to publish? Chemical & Engineering News 79 (June 18): 40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, D. L., K. Burton-Danner, and K. Kiser. 1999. Dealing with scientific disputes involving authorship. Professional. Ethics 7: 45–58.
   Google Scholar
• Rocke, A. J. 1988. Diversions and digressions: Koerner, Dewar and the structure of pyridine. Bulletin for the History of Chemistry. 2: 4–6.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, A. 1998. Harvard faces the aftermath of a graduate student’s suicide. The Chronicle of Higher Education 45: A12–A14.
   Google Scholar
• Seeman, J., and M. House 2011. Responsible conduct of research in academic chemistry in the United States. In: Martínez, A.S., Sánchez, R.E., Gamboa, M.C. (Eds), Química: Historia, Filosofía y Educación. Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, Bogotá, Colombia
   Google Scholar
• Seeman, J. I., and M. C. House. 2010a. Influences on authorship issues. An evaluation of giving credit. Accountability in Research. 17: 146–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seeman, J. I., and M. C. House. 2010b. Influences on authorship issues. An evaluation of receiving, not receiving, and rejecting credit. Accountability in research. 17: 176–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shamoo, A. E., and D. B. Resnik. 2015. Responsible Conduct of Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Solomon, S. D. 2014. Whistle-blower awards get results, but also may lure wrongdoers. The New York Times CXVI (December 31): B3.
   Google Scholar
• Steneck, N. H. 2007. Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan, L. E., and J. R. Ogloff. 1998. Appropriate supervisor-graduate student relationships. Ethics Behavior 8: 229–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swazey, J. P., M. D. Anderson, and K. S. Lewis. 1993. Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist 81:542–553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titus, S. 2015. Foreword. Accountability in Research. 22: 307–311.
   Google Scholar
• Torrice, M., and J. Kemsley. 2014. Patrick Harran and L.A. District Attorney Reach Deal in Sheri Sangji Case. Chemical & Engineering News 92 (June 27):4.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, L. 2009. Eminent organic chemists videos. Chemical & Engineering News 87 (August 10): 40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, L. 2013. Organic Division Releases New Video Series. Chemical & Engineering News (June 24): 39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White House Office of Science and Technology 2000. Federal policy on research misconduct. In http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/fed_research_misconduct-policy, accessed June 4, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Woodward, J., and Goodstein, D. 1996. Conduct, Misconduct and the Structure of Science. American Scientist 84: 479–490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamane, T. (1973). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis. New York: Harper and Row, p. 1088.
   Google Scholar
• Yank, V., and Rennie, D. 1999. Disclosure of Researcher Contributions: A Study of Original Research Articles in The Lancet. Annals of Internal Medicine. 130:661–670.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zare, R. N. 2014. Scientific authorship: Giving credit where credit is due. Current Science 106: 1171–1172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zbar, A., and E. Frank. 2011. Significance of authorship position: an open-ended international assessment. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences 341:106–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar