CITT条款学习：

• "Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them."

• "Falsification【弄虚作假, 串改, 伪造, 歪曲】 is manipulating research materials, equipment or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record."

• "Plagiarism【剽窃, 剽窃物】 is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit

   Each researcher, whether in engineering or otherwise, has an ethical, legal, and professional obligation【义务, 职责, 债务】 to avoid research misconduct【不正当的行为, 明知故犯】.

    Research misconduct is highly corrosive to the research enterprise, especially because it erodes the public's trust and contaminates the integrity of the research literature. But most importantly, it has the potential to cause harm to the public

2. 作者说明

Categories of Coauthors and Their Special Obligations and Responsibilities

Those included in the author list are all presumed to have fulfilled the obligations of authorship and are prepared to take responsibility for the article or other publication, either the portion for which they have explicitly identified as their work, or, in the absence of such a specification, the entire work.

    For coauthors of articles in engineering and science journals, subcategories apply and are ethically significant because of the special obligations and responsibilities that fall to coauthors in those subcategories.

1. Lead author - The lead author is the author who is principally responsible for the work, the one who made the greatest intellectual contribution. The lead author generally takes responsibility for the whole research report, even if some other coauthors explicitly state that they take responsibility for only some aspect of it.

2. Submitting author - This is a designation for the author who submits the manuscript for publication and usually is the author who deals with the journal and its editors from that point forward and frequently becomes the corresponding author (see next entry).

      This author has a special responsibility to see that all the authors are appropriate as authors and must ensure that all have read and approved the final version of the work, or, if there are special publication requirements, such as the requirement by some journals that all authors sign a form saying that they have read and approve the final version, the submitting author sees that those are met. The submitting author is often the lead author or the leader of the research team, but need not be. For example, if a senior investigator were publishing an article with one of her trainees, the senior investigator might submit the article, because she knows more about dealing with journals or the specific journal in question. On the other hand, the senior investigator might ask the trainee to handle the submission (to give the trainee experience) even if the senior investigator were the lead author as well as the team leader.

3. Corresponding author - The corresponding author is the person whom interested individuals should contact about the article after it is published. The corresponding author will typically be the author who receives the bulk of the reprints of the authored article, because that person will answer requests for reprints. The corresponding author may be designated by the other authors simply because that person has the most predictable mailing address (because, for instance, all of the other authors are changing institutions in the coming year). In a few fields, the corresponding author is assumed to be the leader of the research team (see the entry for last author).

4. First author - This term is most frequently used to mean the lead author because in many fields it is customary to indicate the lead author by placing that person's name first in the author list. It is not surprising that in many fields, the first position in the author list is reserved the lead author. Often, the article will then become known by the name of the first name in the author list. There are exceptions however.

   Not all fields have adopted the first author convention, however. Another very common way of ordering the authors is alphabetically (by family name). If the author list is extremely long, alphabetical listing may be the only practical way of handling the ordering of authors. If the ordering is alphabetical, it signifies nothing about the relative contributions. Therefore, the term "first author" does not invariably carry implications for differential credit among the coauthors.

   Some journals or fields that take author position to signify contribution (and typically publish articles with a small number of authors) fine tune the signification of contribution even further: if an article has two authors, those authors may publish the article either with the first author's name beside the second's (to indicate equal contribution) or with the first's above the second (to indicate that the first author is the lead author).

5. Last author - As with the first author position, the last author position may signify nothing more than position in the alphabetical order.

   • In some of the fields in which the order of the authors does indicate contribution, the last author position simply means the author who made the least important contribution.

   • In other fields in which the order of the authors indicates contribution, especially fields that have been strongly influenced by medical research traditions, the last author position is reserved for the leader of the research team that carried out the research.            

     The team leader need not be the lead author; another member of the team may have made the greatest contribution to this piece of research. The leader of the research team will typically be the person who planned the research program of which this research is a part and so may have the most comprehensive vision of where this research fits in the advance of engineering knowledge. The term last author, like first author, can be unclear as to its credit implications.

6. Senior author - This term, too, is ambiguous and is sometimes used to indicate the lead author and sometime only the most senior (by rank, job title, or reputation within the field) author.

After allegations of major data fabrication were raised at Lucent Technologies' Bell Labs, Lucent investigated the possibility of research misconduct in the work of Jan Hendrick Schön, a talented young physicist, and his coauthors. Interestingly, although the investigating panel concluded that only Schön was guilty of misconduct, they suggested that perhaps the most senior of his coauthors, precisely because of his seniority, ought to have done more to prevent the misconduct. Although the seniority and hence power of coauthors does seem relevant to possession of a responsibility, as yet there is no consensus even within specific fields or disciplines about how to assess the responsibility of coauthors for misconduct committed by a colleague.

2.审稿人制度

    Research communities strive to ensure the quality of publications through the peer review process. In this process, a paper is reviewed by experts in the subject of the paper, who are the scholarly peers of the authors. Peer reviewers are asked to determine whether the paper meets appropriate standards for publication. In general, researchers have greater confidence in the results reported in a peer-reviewed paper than in an un-reviewed paper.. Peer review is also used by funding agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, to evaluate the quality of proposals for grants that support research projects.

3. 什么是 conflict of interest

  A conflict of interest refers to a situation in which personal or other interests may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, one's professional obligations in designing, conducting, evaluating or reporting research, in teaching or mentoring others, or when asked to provide independent expert advice.

   Such conflict could, for example, unduly affect the choice of a research protocol, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, the use of certain instruments or statistical methods, the procurement of materials, the recruitment of research subjects, the mentoring of students, the evaluation of products, the communication of results, and the proffering of advice

Professional Judgment

Several factors might compromise a researcher's judgment, independence, or the perception of such in the eyes of others.

     For example, the pressure to publish, a pronounced ideological commitment or moral position, professional recognition from one's peers, and/or a desire to see one's students succeed all could conflict with the researcher's obligation to form and express judgments based on the evidence.

   No researcher is immune to one or more of these competing considerations, and in a competitive research environment, it is all too easy to ignore obvious signals that something is amiss. Researchers must be on-guard against lapsing into self-deception, and allowing preconceptions or external pressures to undercut their ability to acknowledge the possibility that their professional judgment is being compromised.

Financial Pressures

In addition to those aforementioned factors, there is no doubt that financial considerations have raised the most concern about conflicts in research and they have been the focus of deliberations by academic institutions, engineering societies, professional journals, Congress, and federal and state agencies.

   Although financial profit may be only one of several interests that could adversely affect one's professional judgment, for many, "objectivity is nearly invariably compromised, in appearance if not in fact, when the financial stakes of a researcher are too great." [2]

Financial Conflicts of Interest

Concern with financial conflicts of interest in the context of research has reached significant levels in recent years, but its origins in the United States can be traced to the early 1980s. It was during that time when policies (for example, Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) were established that provided powerful economic incentives for the commercial exploitation of new discoveries in science and engineering research in order to stimulate economic growth. These policies also sent a signal to researchers and their institutions that it was acceptable, indeed encouraged, for them to market their discoveries and to benefit from the profits they produced. In the past three decades, there has been dramatic growth in collaborative arrangements between academic researchers and their institutions and private industry, and the trend shows no sign of abating.

The benefits of university-industry collaborations are considerable. For universities, the benefits include a new source of funding, access to raw materials and instrumentation, the transfer of research to product development, training, and education, as well as future employment opportunities for their students. For industry, the benefits can mean access to first-rate academic researchers, inexpensive labor in the form of post-docs and students, advantageous licensing agreements, reduced costs of conducting new R&D programs, and an improved public image. The larger society also gains from the increase in knowledge, new products, and a general boost to the economy.

Conclusion

    It is a responsibility of engineers to follow the relevant rules managing conflicts of interest and to take steps to avoid the possibility of bias associated with competing financial conflicts. That said, however, having a conflict of interest does not necessarily mean that the engineer has done anything wrong, or that it taints a professional relationship. Such situations do not inevitably lead to bad outcomes (for example, withholding information). The serious ethical concerns relate to the choices that one makes when in such a situation.

   When conflicts of interest cannot be avoided, researchers and their institutions need to adopt creative and effective ways to eliminate or mitigate potential bad outcomes. Beyond disclosure, among the many practices that currently exist to manage conflicts are the following: modifying the research protocol; monitoring of the research by independent reviewers; divestment of significant financial interests; recusal of those on the research team from relationships that create the conflict; and eliminating the relationship. All of these strategies must include oversight by persons other than those with the conflict.

   There is no doubt that the potential for financial gain can be problematic for science.

     There is a risk of losing public confidence in the enterprise if economic self-interest is seen as trumping objective professional judgment. If that were to happen, engineers would not be the only ones to experience a great loss. Since the public relies on the problem-solving abilities of engineers, we would all be at a disadvantage if unable to have access to reliable and impartial advice

4. 导师的作用

 

The Role of an Advisor

     Before defining the term "mentor", it is important to understand how advisors can play a significant role in a trainee's life.

   They are the professional and institutional authority that a student will first turn to and depend upon for help in navigating the academic career.

    The student's research, publications, and entry into the field may be linked with the advisor for years, continuing even after the student graduates.

   As such, the advisor is an immediate and powerful figure. Choosing the right advisor is critically important to a successful graduate school experience [1],[2],[3].

     The question that remains is what one should expect from this relationship.

At many institutions, the basic responsibility of an advisor is to guide a graduate student through the steps necessary to complete a graduate degree successfully. This includes advice on completing required course work and research

 

    Even though the terms "advisor" and "mentor" are often used interchangeably, they do not necessarily mean the same thing.

   Mentoring includes responsibilities beyond advising. Mentors focus more directly on a mentee's achievements, success in school, and preparation for the workforce through a non-threatening and non-judgmental one-on-one relationship. This relationship can change over time as each grows, learns and shares experiences in the mentoring relationship. It has a career and psychosocial focus for both mentor and mentee. That is that the mentoring relationship can impact the expectations on all parts of one's life.

   Past experience has revealed a lack of and a definitive need for extensive training of mentors. [5],[6],[7],[8] For example, in formal mentoring programs, mentors and mentees quite often ask "What am I supposed to do?" Simply matching a mentor and mentee based on shared professional interests is not enough. The mentor and mentee need to understand the objectives and expectations of their relationship and have an awareness of each other's rights and responsibilities.

• mentor

网络摘录：

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=290140&do=blog&id=467773

最近偶然间接触到美国CITI (Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative)的材料，对科学研究中的很多与行为规范、诚信、不端、职责和道德等细节问题有了深入的认识，受益颇深。这里将选取其中具有代表性的案例向科学网博友（特别是研究生和年轻科研人员）进行推介，希望引起大家的共同讨论和关注，改善我们周围的科研环境和氛围。

转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自叶小球科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-567091-733654.html

上一篇：知道的和不知道的：google在学术方面的应用也很强悍
下一篇：晶体的填充效率sphere packing efficiency