RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND ETHICS.

CASE STUDIES (alternative assessment) 500-550 words Word length: Approx. 1000 (max. 1200) words There are two case studies below with questions. Please see attached paragraphs below. 1. There are two case studies below please outline the issues related to authorship. How should the protagonists in each case be credited? Are the authors or not? Give reasons for your answers. (200 words) 2. Using your chosen case develop a way in which these problems may have been avoided. (200 words) Consult the following to undertake the Case Studies: University of Sydney guidelines on authorship The Australian Universities Responsible Conduct of Research, revised and republished in 2018 The Vancouver Protocol International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. 1- Dr Susan Banana at Spellbound University has a very promising PhD students, Ms Violet Plum. Violet Plum collects a very interesting data set about disadvantaged children in

Running head: RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND ETHICS 1
Research Integrity and Ethics
Name
University

RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND ETHICS 2
Question 1: First Case Study
The question of authorship has attracted much attention in the modern world. Currently,
there are hardly publications by single authors. The inclusion of multiple authors in a publication
is a great area of contestation considering the fact that the researchers have not been able to
demarcate a clear boundary between authorship and other forms of credit (Welker & McCue,
2017). In the first case study, Dr. Banana wants to us data collected by her student Ms. Violet
Plum. Dr. Banana wants to work on a paper together with her colleague and friend, Dr. Peachy
Melba, to be presented in a conference. He proposes that Ms. Plum can be included as the third
author. However, Ms. Plum is hesitant and insists that they wait until her PHD is submitted.
Clearly, the protagonist in this case, Dr. Banana wants to use the efforts of her student, Ms. Plum
exploitatively. Despite the student being the only person who participated in the fieldwork, she
only gets an offer to be a third author. Technically, Dr. Banana does and her friend do not qualify
to be authors in the paper. They are only willing to do the writing part. Perhaps, they deserve
some credit, but not as authors. Furthermore, the data belongs to the student and she is yet to
submit it for her PHD and get the desired credit. Therefore, the plot by Dr. Banana is not only
exploitative but also unethical. She seeks to benefit more from her student’s work than the
student herself.
Question 1: Second Case Study
In the second case study, the protagonist, Cassie is well-deserving to be credited as an
author. She was actively involved in the fieldwork study and analysis and only missed in the
writing of the manuscript, which she was neither invited for nor informed. Clearly Cassie worked
collaboratively with the two investigators who proceeded to write a paper for publication. Even
though the two investigators went a mile further to write the publication; this ought not to

RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND ETHICS 3
overshadow the contribution of Cassie. Critically, the fieldwork, planning, and analysis were
more demanding than writing. With the data and relevant analysis, anyone would undertake the
writing process with guidance. The writing stage did not require any further research, and hence
nothing new was to be included. The publication ought to have been published under three
authors, Cassie, and the two investigators. The investigators having done the writing part could
then go ahead to credit themselves as the people who developed the manuscript. By do doing,
everyone’s role would have been acknowledged as they desired.
Question 2: First Case Study
All the problems associated with authorship and other forms of credit can indeed be
solved if everyone recognizes their role in a given publication own their role and quit pushing for
greater credits that they do not deserve. Critically, every person understands the role that they
took part in and should not put forth ultimatums to acquire more benefits than they deserve
(Laine & Mulrow, 2015). In the first case, Dr. Banana is pushing for a greater credit than which
she is actually worth. Although her contribution is key to the resulting publication, it does not
necessarily equal the effort made by her student in the collection of the data. The term author in a
broad perspective suggests a person who instigates the ideas in a given publication or invents the
content in a text. Authoring ideas is far much different from writing down ideas. A person who
invents ideas makes a greater contribution than the person who puts them in the form of writing.
Therefore, in the first case study, Ms. Plum is the only rightful owner of the resulting
publication. Authors have an obligation to stand their ground when it comes to publications and
not to allow those only involved in scholarly pursuits to be credited in their works as authors.
Question 2: Second Case Study

RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND ETHICS 4
Missing out in the writing of a manuscript should not be a ground for disqualifying a
person who was actively involved in the critical stages of research project. Cassie indeed made
contributions towards the invention of the ideas in the manuscript. She participated in the
fieldwork, planning, and analysis of the data. Researchers ought to make more clarifications on
the stages that research works undergo before publication. Currently, the set standard is that there
is a particular extent of participation that a person must undertake in order to be credited as an
author. In publications held by multiple authors, every specific author must have a specific
contribution towards the resulting ideas. Researchers should be made to recognize that fieldwork,
planning, and analysis form the backbone of and research publication and that anyone
participating in such should be credited as an author. The initial stages of a research project
surpass the writing of a manuscript as the manuscript only entails putting down already made
discoveries. While not everyone can examine data to come up with data and analyse it, nearly
everyone is capable of recording ideas whether theirs or borrowed from another person.

RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND ETHICS 5
References
Laine, C., & Mulrow, C. (2015). Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. Biomedical Journals,
1-4.
Welker, J. A., & McCue, J. D. (2017). Authorship versus “Credit” for Participation in Research:
A Case Study of Potential Ethical Dilemmas Created by Technical Tools Used by
Researchers and Claims for Authorship by Their Creators. J Am Med Inform Assoc,
14(1), 16–18.