The Writing Tutor

27 Guidelines at a Glance

The following guidelines are taken directly from “Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing” by Miquel Roig.

Guideline 1: An ethical writer ALWAYS acknowledges the contributions of others and the source of his/her ideas.

Guideline 2: Any verbatim text taken from another author must be enclosed in quotation marks.

Guideline 3: We must always acknowledge every source that we use in our writing; whether we paraphrase it, summarize it, or enclose it quotations.

Guideline 4: When we summarize, we condense, in our own words, a substantial amount of material into a short paragraph or perhaps even into a sentence.

Guideline 5: Whether we are paraphrasing or summarizing we must always identify the source of your information.

Guideline 6: When paraphrasing and/or summarizing others’ work we must reproduce the exact meaning of the other author’s ideas or facts using our words and sentence structure.

Guideline 7: In order to make substantial modifications to the original text that result in a proper paraphrase, the author must have a thorough understanding of the ideas and terminology being used.

Guideline 8: A responsible writer has an ethical responsibility to readers, and to the author/s from whom s/he is borrowing, to respect others’ ideas and words, to credit those from whom we borrow, and whenever possible, to use one’s own words when paraphrasing.

Guideline 9: When in doubt as to whether a concept or fact is common knowledge, provide a citation.

Guideline 10: Authors who submit a manuscript for publication containing data, reviews, conclusions, etc., that have already been disseminated in some significant manner (e.g., published as an article in another journal, presented at a conference, posted on the internet) must clearly indicate to the editors and readers the nature of the previous dissemination.

Guideline 11: Authors of complex studies should heed the advice previously put forth by Angell & Relman (1989). If the results of a single complex study are best presented as a ‘cohesive’ single whole, they should not be partitioned into individual papers. Furthermore, if there is any doubt as to whether a paper submitted for publication represents fragmented data, authors should enclose other papers (published or unpublished) that might be part of the paper under consideration (Kassirer & Angell, 1995). Similarly, old data that have been merely augmented with additional data points and that are subsequently presented as a new study can be an equally serious ethical breach.

Guideline 12: Because some instances of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and even some writing practices that might otherwise be acceptable (e.g., extensive paraphrasing or quoting of key elements of a book) can constitute copyright infringement, authors are strongly encouraged to become familiar with basic elements of copyright law.

Guideline 13: While there are some situations where text recycling is an acceptable practice, it may not be so in other situations. Authors are urged to adhere to the spirit of ethical writing and avoid reusing their own previously published text, unless it is done in a manner consistent with standard scholarly conventions (e.g., by using of quotations and proper paraphrasing).

Guideline 14: Authors are strongly urged to double-check their citations. Specifically, authors should always ensure that each reference notation appearing in the body of the manuscript corresponds to the correct citation listed in the reference section and vice versa and that each source listed in the reference section has been cited at some point in the manuscript. In addition, authors should also ensure that all elements of a citation (e.g., spelling of authors’ names, volume number of journal, pagination) are derived directly from the original paper, rather than from a citation that appears on a secondary source. Finally, authors should ensure that credit is given to those authors who first reported the phenomenon being studied.

Guideline 15: The references used in a paper should only be those that are directly related to its contents. The intentional inclusion of references of questionable relevance for purposes of manipulating a journal’s or a paper’s impact factor or a paper’s chances of acceptance is an unacceptable practice.

Guideline 16: Authors should follow a simple rule: Strive to obtain the actual published paper. When the published paper cannot be obtained, cite the specific version of the material being used, whether it is conference presentation, abstract, or an unpublished manuscript.

Guideline 17: Generally, when describing others’ work, do not rely on a secondary summary of that work. It is a deceptive practice, reflects poor scholarly standards, and can lead to a flawed description of the work described. Always consult the primary literature.

Guideline 18: If an author must rely on a secondary source (e.g., textbook) to describe the contents of a primary source (e.g., an empirical journal article), s/he should consult writing manuals used in her discipline to follow the proper convention to do so. Above all, always indicate the actual source of the information being reported.

Guideline 19: When borrowing heavily from a source, authors should always craft their writing in a way that makes clear to readers, which ideas are their own and which are derived from the source being consulted.

Guideline 20: When appropriate, authors have an ethical responsibility to report evidence that runs contrary to their point of view. In addition, evidence that we use in support of our position must be methodologically sound. When citing supporting studies that suffer from methodological, statistical, or other types of shortcomings, such flaws must be pointed out to the reader.

Guideline 21: Authors have an ethical obligation to report all aspects of the study that may impact the independent replicability of their research.

Guideline 22: Researchers have an ethical responsibility to report the results of their studies according to their a priori plans. Any post hoc manipulations that may alter the results initially obtained, such as the elimination of outliers or the use of alternative statistical techniques, must be clearly described along with an acceptable rationale for using such techniques.

Guideline 23: Authorship determination should be discussed prior to commencing a research collaboration and should be based on established guidelines, such as those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Guideline 24: Only those individuals who have made substantitve contributions to a project merit authorship in a paper.

Guideline 25: Faculty-student collaborations should follow the same criteria to establish authorship. Mentors must exercise great care to neither award authorship to students whose contributions do not merit it, nor to deny authorship and due credit to the work of students.

Guideline 26: Academic or professional ghost authorship in the sciences is ethically unacceptable.

Guideline 27-Authors must become aware of possible conflicts of interest in their own research and
to make every effort to disclose those situations (e.g., stock ownership, consulting
agreements to the sponsoring organization) that may pose actual or potential conflicts of
interest.”

A brief overview on Conflict of Interests
When an investigator’s relationship to an organization affects, or gives the
appearance of affecting, his/her objectivity in the conduct of scholarly or scientific
research, a conflict of interest is said to occur. The relationship does not have to be a
personal nor a financial one. For example, a conflict of interest could arise when a family
member of a researcher is associated with an organization whose product the researcher is
in the process of evaluating. Does the family member’s association with the organization
compromise his ability to carry out the evaluation objectively? Perhaps. Let’s consider
another example, imagine an investigator who has been conducting basic science on the
various processes involved in the release of certain neurotransmitters and whose work has
been steadily funded by the maker of one of the most popular antidepressants. Now
imagine a new situation where the research carried out by that investigator naturally leads
him to study the efficacy of that same antidepressant while being funded by the company
that manufactures it. In conducting the research, is that investigator’s objectivity affected
by his long-standing relationship to the drug company? Perhaps it hasn’t.
Naturally, some conflicts of interest are unavoidable and having a conflict of
interest is not in itself unethical. However, the increasing role industry has played in
sponsoring research that bears on commercial applications has led to a focus on how such
sponsorship affects the research process and outcomes. The situation appears to be
particularly serious in the realm of pharmaceutical research. For example, Stelfox, Chua,
O’Rourke, and Detsky (1998) collected a sample of published reports (e.g., studies, letters
to the editor) on the safety of calcium channel blockers, drugs used to treat cardiovascular
disease and correlated the authors’ conclusions about their efficacy with whether or not the
investigators had received financial support from companies that manufacture those types
of drugs. The results revealed a strong association between conclusions that were
supportive of the drugs and prior financial support from companies that were associated
with those types of drugs.
To ameliorate the situation, research institutions, professional societies, and an
increasing number of journals have formulated guidelines for dealing with potential
conflicts of interest. Essentially, most of these guidelines require authors to disclose such
conflicts either in the cover letter to the editor of the journal to which an investigator
submits a manuscript and/or in a footnote on the manuscript itself.
GUIDELINE 27: Authors must become aware of possible conflicts
of interest in their own research and to make every effort to disclose
those situations (e.g., stock ownership, consulting agreements to the
sponsoring organization) that may pose actual or potential conflicts
of interest.
Links to resources on Conflicts of Interest listed by ORI
On Being A Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research
Draft Interim Guidance on Financial Relationships in Clinical Research: DHHS
Report on Individual Financial Interest in Human Subjects Research: AAMC
Report on Conflict of Interest in Biomedical Research: GAO
Conflict of Interest Statement – NIH

Ghost Authorship
Ghost authorship occurs when a written work fails to identify individuals who made
significant contributions to the research and writing of that work. Although in recent times
this unethical practice is typically associated with the pharmaceutical and biomedical
device industry, the term is also applicable in a number of other contexts. For example, in
academic contexts, it is widely recognized as cheating to have someone other than the
named student author write a paper that is then submitted as the student’s own. Perhaps
with some exceptions (e.g., speech writers), ghost authorship is ethically unacceptable
because the reader is mislead as to the actual contributions made by the named author.

Academic Ghost Authorship
A not uncommon form of academic dishonesty that has probably always existed is to
have someone else other than the student (a friend or relative), complete an assignment or
write a paper. Several Internet sites now exist that, in addition to making available copies
of papers that have already been written, they also provide custom-written papers,
including doctoral theses. The customer (i.e., student) specifies the topic and other
requirements for the paper and, for a fee, a staff writer for the service will supply a customwritten
product. For an eye-opening account of how this practice works even before the
proliferation of on-line paper mill sites, I refer the reader to Whitherspoon (1995)’s
personal account as a Ghostwriter.
Situations in which authors, whether students or professionals, find themselves in need
of extensive external assistance with their writing can also raise some interesting ethical
dilemmas. For example, consider the doctoral candidate who, because of limited writing
skills, relies heavily on an individual or editorial service resulting in that individual making
substantial editorial changes to the writing of the thesis. Such a situation may be acceptable
as long as the named author indicates in a byline or acknowledgement section the full
extent of others’ assistance. This, however, is not always done and one of the reasons is
that such acknowledgement may reflect negatively on the author as possibly indicating that
s/he does not have the necessary skills expected of a doctoral candidate. By
mischaracterizing or by not acknowledging altogether the high level of assistance received,
students falsely portray a level of academic competency that they truly lack. In instances in
which doctoral students anticipate relying on outside individuals to help with the writing of
a thesis or even term paper, it is strongly recommended that they confer with their thesis
committee and supervisor to determine the accepted parameters of such assistance and to
fully disclose the nature of the assistance received.
Professional Ghost Authorship
In the literary world ghost authorship is most often associated with celebrity-authored
works in which a celebrity, together with a skilled writer produce written products, such as
an autobiography or a sort of “tell all” book. Although much of the writing may be done by
the ghost writer, his/her contributions are not always acknowledged and, consequently, in
those instances the reader may be mislead into believing that the celebrity is the sole author
of the work.
In the biomedical sciences ghost writing has become particularly problematic (see
Ngai, Gold, Gill, & Rochon, 2005). For example, in a typical scenario, a pharmaceutical or
medical device company will hire an outside researcher with known expertise in the
company’s line of products (e.g., antidepressants) to write an “balanced ” review of their
product. To facilitate the write-up of the paper, the company furnishes the expert with a
draft of the paper that had already been prepared by a ghost author employed by the
company. And, as it often happens in these types of cases, the resulting paper ends up
portraying the product in a more favorable light than in reality it might deserve.
The extent of ghost contributions can range from the initial draft framing of a
manuscript to the complete or nearly complete write-up of the paper (see the distinction
made by Chalmers as cited by Altus, 2006). In either case, the main concern is the extent
to which the writing influences the reader toward a particular product or point of view
rather than presenting an unbiased position or data. In the past few years, several articles
and editorials have condemned the practice as ethically questionable. For example, the
World Association of Medical Editors has produced a position statement, which considers
ghost authorship dishonest and unacceptable.
GUIDELINE 26: Academic or professional ghost authorship in
the sciences is ethically unacceptable.
Sources on publication and authorship from which the above guidelines were derived
o Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines On Good Publication Practice
o International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts
Submitted to Biomedical Journals
o British Sociological Association: Authorship Guidelines for Academic Papers
o For additional references on authorship consult The Council of Science Editors

Authorship in faculty-student collaborations
Undergraduates, and certainly graduate students, are increasingly involved in
research collaboration with their faculty. Along with high grade point averages and scores
on standardized testing, undergraduate research experience is one of the most valued
criteria for advanced graduate training. As a result, an increasing number of
undergraduates are becoming involved in research and authoring journal articles.
Are the authorship guidelines for students different than those for other
professionals? Apparently not.
According to Fine and Kurdek (1993) who have written on these issues. According to these
authors:
“To be included as an author on a scholarly publication, a student should, in a
cumulative sense, make a professional contribution that is creative and intellectual
in nature, that is integral to completion of the paper, and that requires an
overarching perspective of the project. Examples of professional contributions
include developing the research design, writing portions of the manuscript,
integrating diverse theoretical perspectives, developing new conceptual models,
designing assessments, contributing to data analysis decision and interpreting
results …” (p. 1145).
Faculty mentors might think of the above guidelines for students as being rather
harsh. However, consider part of the rationale for these authors’ position that awarding
authorship to an undeserving student is unethical:
“First, a publication on one’s record that is not legitimately earned may falsely
represent the individual’s scholarly expertise. Second, if because he or she is now
a published author, the student is perceived as being more skilled than a peer who
is not published, the student is given an unfair advantage professionally. Finally, if
the student is perceived to have a level of competence that he or she does not
actually have, he or she will be expected to accomplish tasks that may be outside
the student’s range of expertise” (p. 1143).
On the other hand, there is evidence suggesting that students’ earned authorship
credit is sometimes underrepresented or outright denied by supervising faculty (Swazey,
Anderson, & Lewis, 1993; Tarnow, 1999). Clearly, such outcomes are equally unethical as
they rob the deserving student of their due credit.
GUIDELINE 25: Faculty-student collaborations should follow the
same criteria to establish authorship. Mentors must exercise great
care to neither award authorship to students whose contributions do
not merit it, nor to deny authorship and due credit to the work of
students.

Establishing authorship
As per the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, only
individuals that make substantive intellectual contributions to the project should be listed
as authors and the order of authorship should be based on the degree of importance of each
author’s contribution to the project. The latter may be difficult to establish in disciplines,
such as particle physics, where a team of several dozen, perhaps even over one hundred
contributors, may author a single paper. Authorship entails the ability to publicly take
responsibility for the contents of the project (e.g., being sufficiently knowledgeable about
the project to be able to present it in a formal forum). What determines whether a
37
contribution is substantive or not is a matter of debate and, technically, it should not matter
whether the aim of the collaboration is an internal technical report, a conference
presentation, or an article targeted for refereed journal. Generally, examples of substantive
contributions include, but are not limited to, aiding in the conceptualization of the
hypotheses, designing the methodology of the investigation and significantly contributing
to the writing the manuscript. “Mechanical” activities, such as entering information in a
database or merely collecting actual data (e.g., running subjects, collecting questionnaires)
are not sufficient grounds for authorship, but should be acknowledged in a footnote. In
addition, “honorary” or “courtesy” authorship assigned on the basis of some leadership
position (e.g., such as being head of the department where the research is carried out) must
also be avoided.
GUIDELINE 24: Only those individuals who have made
substantitve contributions to a project merit authorship in a paper.

A brief overview on Conflict of Interests

GUIDELINE 23: Authors must become aware of possible conflicts of interest in their own research and to make every effort to disclose those situations (e.g., stock ownership, consulting agreements to the sponsoring organization) that may pose actual or potential conflicts of interest.

When an investigator’s relationship to an organization affects, or gives the appearance of affecting, his/her objectivity in the conduct of scholarly or scientific research, a conflict of interest is said to occur. The relationship does not have to be a personal nor a financial one. For example, a conflict of interest could arise when a family member of a researcher is associated with an organization whose product the researcher is in the process of evaluating. Does the family member’s association with the organization compromise his ability to carry out the evaluation objectively? Let’s consider another example, imagine an investigator who has been conducting basic science on the various processes involved in the release of certain neurotransmitters and whose work has been steadily funded by the maker of one of the most popular antidepressants. Now imagine a new situation where the research carried out by that investigator naturally leads him to study the efficacy of that same antidepressant while being funded by the company that manufactures it. In conducting the research, is that investigator’s objectivity affected by his long-standing relationship to the drug company? Perhaps it hasn’t.

Naturally, some conflicts of interest are unavoidable and having a conflict of interest is not in itself unethical. However, the increasing role industry has played in sponsoring research that bears on commercial applications has led to a focus on how such sponsorship affects the research process and outcomes. The situation appears to be particularly serious in the realm of pharmaceutical research. For example, Stelfox, Chua, O’Rourke, and Detsky (1998) collected a sample of published reports (e.g., studies, letters to the editor) on the safety of calcium channel blockers, drugs used to treat cardiovascular disease and correlated the authors’ conclusions about their efficacy with whether or not the investigators had received financial support from companies that manufacture those types of drugs. The results revealed a strong association between conclusions that were supportive of the drugs and prior financial support from companies that were associated with those types of drugs.

To ameliorate the situation, research institutions, professional societies, and an increasing number of journals have formulated guidelines for dealing with potential conflicts of interest. Essentially, most of these guidelines require authors to disclose such conflicts either in the cover letter to the editor of the journal to which an investigator submits a manuscript and/or in a footnote on the manuscript itself.

Authorship in faculty-student collaborations

Undergraduates, and certainly graduate students, are increasingly involved in research collaboration with their faculty. Along with high grade point averages and scores on standardized testing, undergraduate research experience is one of the most valued criteria for advanced graduate training. As a result, an increasing number of undergraduates are becoming involved in research and authoring journal articles.

Are the authorship guidelines for students different than those for other professionals? Apparently not, according to Fine and Kurdek (1993) who have written on these issues. According to these authors:

“To be included as an author on a scholarly publication, a student should, in a cumulative sense, make a professional contribution that is creative and intellectual in nature, that is integral to completion of the paper, and that requires an overarching perspective of the project. Examples of professional contributions include developing the research design, writing portions of the manuscript, integrating diverse theoretical perspectives, developing new conceptual models, designing assessments, contributing to data analysis decision and interpreting results …” (p. 1145).

Faculty mentors might think of the above student guidelines as being rather harsh. However, consider part of the rationale for these authors’ position that awarding authorship to an undeserving student is unethical:

“First, a publication on one’s record that is not legitimately earned may falsely represent the individual’s scholarly expertise. Second, if because he or she is now a published author, the student is perceived as being more skilled than a peer who is not published, the student is given an unfair advantage professionally. Finally, if the student is perceived to have a level of competence that he or she does not actually have, he or she will be expected to accomplish tasks that may be outside the student’s range of expertise” (p. 1143).

About this Material

Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing

The purpose of this module is to help students, as well as professionals, identify and prevent questionable practices and to develop an awareness of ethical writing. This guide was written by Miguel Roig, PhD, from St. Johns University with funding from Office of Research Integrity.

Establishing authorship

Only individuals that make substantive intellectual contributions to the project should be listed as authors and the order of authorship should be based on the degree of importance of each author’s contribution to the project. The latter may be difficult to establish in disciplines, such as particle physics, where a team of several dozen, perhaps even over one hundred contributors, may author a single paper. Authorship entails the ability to publicly take responsibility for the contents of the project (e.g., being sufficiently knowledgeable about the project to be able to present it in a formal forum). What determines whether a contribution is substantive or not is a matter of debate and, technically, it should not matter whether the aim of the collaboration is an internal technical report, a conference presentation, or an article targeted for refereed journal. Generally, examples of substantive contributions include, but are not limited to, aiding in the conceptualization of the hypotheses, designing the methodology of the investigation and significantly contributing to the writing the manuscript. “Mechanical” activities, such as entering information in a database or merely collecting actual data (e.g., running subjects, collecting questionnaires) are not sufficient grounds for authorship, but should be acknowledged in a footnote. In addition, “honorary” or “courtesy” authorship assigned on the basis of some leadership position (e.g., such as being head of the department where the research is carried out) must also be avoided.

Deciding on authorship

Whether students or professionals, individuals collaborating on a research project should discuss authorship issues, such as who will be designated as senior author, the order of other authors, and any other individual acknowledgements for other contributions to the project, before initiating work on the project. Any agreement reached regarding authorship should be recorded in writing and should outline the formula used for determining whom the senior author should be and the authorship order for the rest of the investigators involved in the project. The agreement should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate changes that may arise while the project is in progress (e.g., an individual not initially designated as author ends up making substantive contributions that earn her authorship in the paper, or an individual previously designated as author fails to carry out the designated duties, making his contributions not sufficient or important to merit authorship).

AUTHORSHIP ISSUES AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

An instructional resource on scholarly and scientific writing would not be complete without some discussion of conflicts of interest and authorship issues, such as the conditions that merit the granting of authorship. We now turn our attention to these matters.

Advances in biotechnology, communication, and computing have allowed scientists to investigate increasingly complex problems. It is not uncommon these days for large-scale investigations to be carried out by a handful of scientists from various institutions sometimes spanning continents. Groups and individual contributors may work on the same or different key aspects of a project and these collaborations will invariably result in multiple-authored publications. Unfortunately, some of these collaborative efforts have given rise to disputes about authorship issues. The most frequent disputes center around the following questions:1) Which members of a research team merit authorship? 2) Who is designated as senior author of the resulting journal article? And 3) How is the rest of the authorship order determined?

Given that authorship, particularly the designation of senior author of a paper in scientific and scholarly publications plays such a prominent role in the current merit system, it is extremely important to have sound guidelines for establishing the conditions for authorship. For example, in writing about these issues, Steinbok (1995) questions whether various situational roles in biomedical research merit authorship. He writes: “Should the head of the department automatically be an author?Should the various clinicians involved in the care of the patients who are subjects of a paper automatically be authors?What about the person who goes through a set of charts and puts information into a database?What about the statistician who analyzes the data?” (p. 324). Others have raised questions related to the current trend for graduate and undergraduate students to be directly involved in research and in the authoring of papers.

Fortunately, individuals and a number of professional societies have proposed relevant guidelines in this area (see references below). Although these sets of guidelines are not identical there is sufficient overlap to offer readers the following set of recommendations. In considering these guidelines, readers are advised to consult their professional associations for any authorship guidelines that they may have also developed. Readers are also advised to consult the institutions with which they are affiliated, as well as the individual journals to which they intend to submit a manuscript.

About this Material

Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing

The purpose of this module is to help students, as well as professionals, identify and prevent questionable practices and to develop an awareness of ethical writing. This guide was written by Miguel Roig, PhD, from St. Johns University with funding from Office of Research Integrity.