SPRING 20ZZ CASE STUDY A: A SINGLE-AUTHOR PAPER SOURCE: Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science AUTHORING INSTI

[answerhappygod]

Spring 20zz Case Study A A Single Author Paper Source Online Ethics Center For Engineering And Science Authoring Insti 1 (91.66 KiB) Viewed 33 times

SPRING 20ZZ CASE STUDY A: A SINGLE-AUTHOR PAPER SOURCE: Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science AUTHORING INSTITUTION: Brian Schrag, Association for Practical and Professional Ethics UPDATED: 21 October 2015 Mike Sanchez is a bright, young post-doc working in a big research group in the physics department at State University. His life- long career goal is to conduct research in a leading research university as a professor. During one of his job interviews, he discussed a particular problem in his field of expertise with the interviewer. In the course of the interview, he could not satisfactorily prove his point because his theoretical arguments did not convince the interviewer. Upon returning to his lab, Mike decided to pursue the matter further and conduct an experiment to verify his argument. Mike's experimental background was not sufficient to obtain the desired results. Lisa Chen, Mike's friend, is a fourth-year graduate student working on her PhD in the same lab. She volunteered to help Mike with the experiment. Lisa is a talented experimentalist, and she successfully completed the experiment. Mike sent the results to the interviewer, thereby proving his point. While working on this small experiment, Mike got an idea for an exciting study, which, if done correctly, could yield a good publication in an influential journal. But Mike got discouraged because he knew he couldn't handle the complicated experiment alone. Lisa encouraged him to proceed with the idea and promised to design and complete the experimental aspect of the project. Mike agreed, and while he worked on the theory, Lisa designed and built the experiment. Mike was very excited about his theoretical results and shared them with his adviser, Professor David Danson. Dr. Danson liked Mike's ideas and told him that it was time for Mike to get his name noticed in the scientific community. He encouraged Mike to publish the results in a well- respected, top-tier journal. The adviser also suggested that it would be better for Mike's career if he published the work in a single- author paper. He said, "You worked on it exclusively, and it would be a wonderful opportunity to write a paper by yourself. It would be a stronger paper if you could validate your theory with experimental data." Mike liked the suggestion, and he didn't mention that Lisa had already done a significant amount of work on the project. He told Lisa that his adviser recommended that he publish results in a single-author paper and said, "I really think that this would help my career, plus that's what our adviser wants. How cheated will you feel if I publish this paper alone using all the data that your experiment provides?" Lisa and Mike were good friends, and she felt obligated to help him. Even though Lisa was disappointed, she told Mike to do whatever he felt was right. Mike decided to submit the paper as the sole author. After this conversation, Lisa stopped working on the experiment, and Mike took over. He did not design the experiment; therefore, he couldn't manage to get it to work and did not make any progress. Lisa did not offer any more help, and Mike didn't ask her for any. Finally, Mike decided to submit the paper without the experimental part. It would be an interesting theoretical investigation, but it would not have the scientific impact that it could have had with the experimental validation. Questions These guide your thinking they're not meant to be listed on a sheet of paper and answered individually. As you prepare your case study, you will no doubt end up responding to some of them organically. 1. Would Dr. Danson's advice be appropriate if he knew about Lisa's contribution to Mike's project? Was Mike responsible for informing his adviser about Lisa's contribution? 2. Should Mike have followed Dr. Danson's recommendation concerning authorship? 3. Did Mike ask a reasonable favor from Lisa? 4. What were Lisa's options when Mike first approached her with his experimental problem? During the experimental process? When Mike stated his wishes to publish as a single author? 5. Should Lisa have continued to help Mike with the experiment after their conversation? Should she have gone to Dr. Danson with her concerns? 6. Why do you think authorship credit can be such a divisive issue among researchers?