Reflection o Determinin Authorshi Credi an Authorshi Orde o FacultyStuden Collaboration Mar A Fin an Lawrenc A Kurde The purpose of this article is to explore the process of determining authorship cr

Reflection o Determinin Authorshi Credi an Authorshi Orde o FacultyStuden Collaboration Mar A Fin an Lawrenc A Kurde The purpose of this article is to explore the process of determining authorship cr Reflection o Determinin Authorshi Credi an Authorshi Orde o FacultyStuden Collaboration Mar A Fin an Lawrenc A Kurde The purpose of this article is to explore the process of determining authorship cr - Start

Added : 2015-02-20 Views :75K

Embed code:
Download Pdf

Reflection o Determinin Authorshi Credi an Authorshi Orde o FacultyStuden Collaboration Mar A Fin an Lawrenc A Kurde The purpose of this article is to explore the process of determining authorship cr




Download Pdf - The PPT/PDF document "Reflection o Determinin Authorshi Credi ..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.



Presentations text content in Reflection o Determinin Authorshi Credi an Authorshi Orde o FacultyStuden Collaboration Mar A Fin an Lawrenc A Kurde The purpose of this article is to explore the process of determining authorship cr


Page 1
Reflection o Determinin Authorshi Credi an Authorshi Orde o Faculty-Studen Collaboration Mar A Fin an Lawrenc A Kurde The purpose of this article is to explore the process of determining authorship credit and authorship order on collaborative publications with students. The article pre- sents hypothetical cases that describe relevant ethical is- sues, highlights ethical principles that could provide as- sistance in addressing these dilemmas, and makes rec- ommendations to faculty who collaborate with students on scholarly projects. It is proposed that authorship credit and

order decisions should be based on the relative schol- arly abilities and professional contributions of the collab- orators. Furthermore, it is recommended that both faculty and students participate in the authorship decision-making process early in the collaborative endeavor. cholarl activit i a expecte an rewarde en terpris fo man professional (Keith-Spiege & Koocher 1985) I academi settings decision re gardin promotion tenure an salar ar heavil influ ence no onl b th numbe o publication i peer reviewe journal bu als b th numbe o first-authored publication (Cost & Gatz 1992) Similarly i

applie settings professional wit stron publicatio record ar ofte considere t hav mor competenc an expertis tha thei les publishe counterparts Clearly authorshi credi an authorshi orde ar no trivia matters Becaus o th importanc o author shi credit dilemma ma aris whe mor tha on perso i involve i a scholarl project I thi article specificall addres collaborativ effort betwee fac ult an undergraduat o graduat students Th im portanc o authorshi i th faculty-studen researc contex wa underscore b Goodyear Crego an John sto (1992) wh foun tha authorshi issue wer amon th "critica incidents identifie b

experience re searcher i faculty-studen researc collaborations Th purpos o thi articl i t contribut t th discussion regardin th determinatio o authorshi credi an orde o authorship—i th faculty-studen researc context Ther ar si part t th article T provid a contex fo th discussions th first par present fou hypothetica cases Becaus th final authorshi de cision i thes case ar based o consideration reviewe late i th article th case en before th final decision wer determined Th secon par review availabl guideline fo determinin authorshi credi an order Th thir par describe ethica issue relate t

author shi credi an authorshi orde whe facult an stu dent collaborate Th fourt par o th articl highlight severa ethica principle tha ma provid assistanc i resolvin authorshi dilemmas Th fifth par provide tentativ recommendation fo facult wh collaborat wit student o scholarl projects Th final par revisit th fou hypothetica case wit ou opinion regardin wha authorshi decision woul hav bee appropriate Hypothetica Case Cas I studen i a clinica psycholog doctora progra con ducte dissertatio researc a a practicu site Th ini tia ide fo th stud wa develope betwee th prac ticu superviso ( psychologist

an th student Th dissertatio committe wa compose o th chair wh wa a psycholog facult membe i th student' grad uat department th practicu supervisor an anothe psycholog facult membe i th sam department Afte th dissertatio wa approved th chai o th committe raise th possibilit o writin a journa articl base o th dissertation Th studen agree t writ th first an subsequen draft o th manuscript th committe chai agree t supervis th writin process an th practicu superviso agree t revie draft o th paper O initia drafts th student practicu supervisor an committe chai wer first, second an thir authors

respectively However afte numerou drafts th studen acknowl edge losin interes i th writin process Th com mitte chai finished th manuscrip afte extensivel reanalyzin th data Cas 2 undergraduat studen asked a psycholog membe supervis a honor thesis Th studen propose a topic th facult membe primaril develope th re searc methodology th studen collecte an entere th data th facult membe conducte th statistica analyses an th studen use par o th analyse fo th thesis Th studen wrot th thesi unde ver clos su pervisio b th facult member Afte th honor thesi wa completed th facult membe decide tha dat fro

th entir projec wer sufficientl interestin t Gar R VandenBo serve a actio edito fo thi article Correspondenc concernin thi articl shoul b addresse t Mar Fine Psycholog Department Universit o Dayton Dayton O 45469-1430 o Lawrenc A Kurdek Psycholog Department Wrigh Stat University Dayton O 45435 Novembe 199 America Psychologis Copyrigh 199 b th America Psychologica Association Inc 0O03-O66X/93/S 0 Vol 48 No 11 1141-114 114
Page 2
warran publicatio a a unit Becaus th studen di no hav th skill necessar t writ th entir stud fo scientifi journal th facult membe di so Th stu dent' thesi

containe approximatel on thir o th materia presente i th article Case 3 psychologis an psychiatris collaborate o a study studen wh wa seekin a empirica projec fo a master' thesi wa brough int th investigatio afte th desig wa developed Th studen wa give severa article i th conten area foun additiona relevan lit erature collecte an analyze som o th data an wrot th thesi unde th supervisio o th psychologist Afte th thesi wa completed certai portion o th study whic require additiona dat analyses wer writte fo publicatio b th psychologis an th psy chiatrist Th studen wa no aske t contribut t writ

in th journa article Case 4 undergraduat studen complete a honor thesi unde th supervisio o a psycholog facult member Th studen chos th thesi topi an too initiativ i explorin extan measures Becaus n suitabl instru ment wer found th studen an th facult membe jointl develope a measure Th studen collecte an entere th data Th facult membe conducte th sta tistica analyses Th studen wrot th thesi wit th facult member' guidance an fe revision wer re quired Becaus th studen lacke th skill t rewrit th thesi a a journa article th facult membe wrot th articl an th studen wa liste a first author Base

reviewers comment t th first draf o th manu script aspect o th stud no include i th thesi neede t b integrate int a majo revisio o th manuscript Availabl Guideline fo Determinin Authorshi Credi an Orde eac o th fou hypothetica case describe above decision regardin authorshi credi an orde wer re quired Unti th las decade ther wer fe publishe guideline tha provide assistanc i thi decision-mak in process a initia guideline th America Psychologica Association' (APA's Ethic Committe (1983 issue a polic statemen o authorshi o article base o dis sertations Th statemen indicate tha dissertatio su

pervisor shoul b include a author o suc article onl whe the mad "substantia contributions t th study I suc instances onl secon authorshi wa ap propriat fo th superviso becaus first authorshi wa reserve fo th student Th polic als suggeste tha agreement regardin authorshi b mad befor th ar ticl wa written Thi polic statemen wa importan becaus i rec ognize tha dissertations b definition represen origina an independen wor b th student Give th creativ natur o th student' dissertation a articl tha h o sh write based o tha dissertatio shoul hav th stu den identifie a first author Th facult supervisor

a most deserves secon authorship Althoug thi polic statemen wa helpful i di no clearl defin th ke ter substantial contributions. Furthermore becaus th polic statemen applie onl dissertatio research i di no provid guidanc fo facult wh engage i collaborativ project wit stu dent outsid o dissertations Curren guideline fo makin decision regardin authorshi credi an orde ar presente i th AP Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (1992) whic supersede th 198 policy Th AP cod ha a sectio relevan t th determinatio o authorshi scholarl publications Sectio 6.23 Publicatio Credit state (a

Psychologist tak responsibilit an credit includin au thorshi credit onl fo wor the hav actuall performe o whic the hav contributed (b Principa authorshi an othe publicatio credit accuratel reflec th relativ scientifi o professiona contribution o th individual involved regardles o thei relativ status Mer possessio o a institutiona position suc a Departmen Chair doe no justif authorshi credit Mino contribution t th re searc o t th writin fo publicatio ar appropriatel acknowl edged suc a i footnote o i a introductor statement (c A studen i usuall liste a principa autho o an mul tiple-authore

articl tha i base primaril o th student' dissertatio o thesis Althoug thi sectio i cleare an mor detaile tha th comparabl sectio i previou version o th Ethical Principles of Psychologists, i fail t provid comprehen siv guidanc t facult wh publis wit students I particular term suc a professional contribution an minor contribution ar unclea and a a result ar ope differen interpretation (Keith-Spiege & Koocher 1985) I th absenc o clea guideline regardin au thorshi credi an authorshi orde o faculty-studen collaborativ publications disagreement ma occur an on o bot partie ma fee exploited Ethica

Issue Involve i Determinin Authorshi Credi an Orde o Faculty-Studen Collaborativ Project Th ethica dilemma tha aris whe facult collaborat wit student o wor worth o publicatio ste fro th uniqu natur o th faculty-studen relationship Al thoug collaboratio betwee tw professional ca occu a egalitaria basis collaboratio betwee facult an thei student i inherentl unequal B natur o thei degrees credentials expertise an experience man fac ult supervis students Supervisor ar responsibl no onl fo facilitatin th growt an developmen o su pervisee bu als fo portrayin supervisees abilitie ac curatel t others

Fo example facult ma writ letter recommendatio fo thei supervisees evaluat thei work assig grades o giv critica feedbac t represen 114 Novembe 199 America Psychologis
Page 3
tative o thei undergraduat o graduat programs Thus facult wh functio a supervisor mus balanc th potentiall competin dutie o fosterin th growt thei trainee an presentin the t other i a fai an accurat manner believ tha ther ar tw potentia ethica di lemma i faculty-studen collaborations Th first di lemm arise whe facult tak authorshi credi tha wa earne b th student Man o th authorship-relate critica incident

identifie i th Goodyea e al (1992 an Cost an Gat (1992 studie concerne facult tak in a leve o authorshi credi tha wa no deserve an no givin student appropriat credit A on migh ex pect Tabachnick Keith-Spiegel an Pop (1991 foun tha facult respondent perceive "acceptin undeserve authorshi o a student' publishe paper a unethical Th secon dilemm occur whe student ar grante undeserve authorshi credit Ther ar thre reason wh thi dilemm i a ethica one First a pub licatio o one' recor tha i no legitimatel earne ma falsel represen th individual' scholarl expertise Second if becaus h o sh i no a publishe

author th studen i perceive a bein mor skille tha a pee wh i no published th studen i give a unfai ad vantag professionally Finally i th studen i perceive hav a leve o competenc tha h o sh doe no actuall have h o sh wil b expecte t accomplis task tha ma b outsid th student' rang o expertise Ho ofte d facult giv student th benefi o th doub wit respec t authorshi o collaborativ pub lications Althoug w ar awar o man instance whe supervisor engage i thi practice systemati empirica evidenc relate t th prevalenc o thi practic i rare Twent year ago Ove an Smallma (1973 foun tha "distinguishe

psychologists ha reduce rate o first- authore paper i th year followin receip o AP Scientifi Contributio Awards Zuckerma (1968 ha simila findings i a stud o Nobe laureates Recently Cost an Gat (1992) i a surve o facult an student aske t assig publicatio credi i hypothetica disser tatio scenarios foun tha highe academi ran an mor teachin experienc wer positivel relate t facult givin student mor authorshi credit On explanatio o thi positiv relatio betwee fac ult experienc an grantin student hig level o au thorshi credi i tha senio facult ar mor likel tha junio facult t b sough afte fo researc

consultatio student an ne faculty However i i als possibl tha the ma b mor generous—perhap overl so—i grantin student authorshi becaus publicatio pressure hav lessene fo them Interestingly Cost an Gat foun tha facult wer mor Likel tha student t giv th studen authorshi credi i th hypothetica scenarios Ethica Principle i Determinin Authorshi Credi an Orde o Faculty-Studen Collaborativ Project Thre ethica principle ar relevan t ethica dilemma tha aris wit regar t authorshi o faculty-studen collaborativ projects beneficence justice an parental ism Thes principles fro whic ethica code (e.g. th

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct) ar developed ma provid guidanc whe th code themselve ar inadequat (Kitchener 1984) b beneficen i "t abstai fro injurin other an t hel other furthe thei importan an legitimat interests largel b preventin o removin possibl harms (Beaucham & Walters 1982 p 28) I th con tex o th authorshi issue beneficence implie tha su pervisor shoul hel student furthe thei career b includin the a author whe thei contribution ar professiona i nature I ou opinion t avoi harmin student an other i th lon run beneficenc implie tha facult shoul gran student

authorshi credi an first autho statu onl whe the ar deserved Justice—th secon ethica principle—refer t th ethica dut t trea other fairl an t giv the wha the deserve "A individua ha bee treate justl whe ha bee give wha h o sh i du o owed wha o sh deserve o ca legitimatel claim (Beaucham Walters 1982 p 30) Th principl o justic i ofte interprete t infe tha on shoul trea anothe un equall onl i ther i a morall relevan differenc be twee the (Beaucham & Walters 1982) I th au thorshi setting i student ar no considere t b meaningfull differen fro professiona colleagues the the shoul b awarde

authorshi credi an orde o th sam basi a thos o nonstuden colleagues However on make th contrastin assumptio tha student hav les powe an competenc tha nonstuden collab orators the justic woul b serve b givin student differentia treatment Parentalism—th final ethica principle—refer t "treatmen tha restrict th libert o individuals withou thei consent wher th justificatio fo suc actio i eithe th preventio o som har the migh d t themselve o th productio o som benefi the migh no otherwis secure (Beaucham & Walters 1982 p 38) Parentalisti action ar generall considere t b mos appropriat whe the ar

directe towar person wh ar nonautonomou (i.e. lac th capacit fo self determination Beaucham & Walters 1982) Thus th appropriatenes o parentalisti behavio i th authorshi contex depend o th student' leve o autonomy superviso wh i actin parentalisticall migh alon decid th leve o authorshi credi a studen re ceives Eve i student ar consulte i th decision makin process supervisor ma us thei powe t in fluence th natur o th decisio an discoun studen input Parentalis i als relevan t th issu o whe authorshi credi i decided Whe th superviso make th decisio afte th wor i completed th studen make hi o he

contribution withou knowin th exten authorshi tha h o sh wil receive Thus eve whe th superviso doe no consul th studen i th decision makin process late decision ar mor parentalisti tha thos rendere befor th wor ha bee completed Novembe 199 America Psychologis 114
Page 4
Recommendation fo Determinin Authorshi Credi an Orde Ho d th principle o beneficence justice an paren talism i aggregate provid guidanc i determinin au thorshi credi an order T answe thi question w argu tha tw separat aspect o th authorshi deter minatio procedur nee t b considered (a th proces ho collaborator decid wh

wil receiv a give leve authorshi credi fo specifie professiona contribu tion an (b th outcom resultin fro th decision makin process I thi section recommendation i eac thes tw area ar proposed Proces Recommendation note earlier th principl o justic dictate tha su pervisor shoul trea student unequall onl i ther i meaningfu differenc betwee them Wit particula referenc t th authorshi decision-makin process w argu tha facult an student ar no meaningfull dif feren becaus facult an students—particularl grad uat students—hav th autonomy rationality problem solvin ability an fairnes t mutuall decid

o au thorshi credit Therefore w propos tha bot facult an student shoul hav th opportunit t participat th proces o determinin authorshi credit I ad dition w argu tha i i inappropriat fo supervisor assum a parentalisti stanc i thi process Ou positio shoul no b misinterprete t indi cat tha facult an student ar equal i power status competence an expertise Ther ar typicall substantia difference betwee the i thes areas Rather w believ tha facult an student ar bot sufficientl autonomou mutuall decid o wha leve o authorshi credi wil awarde t eac collaborato fo specifie professiona contributions Severa

specifi recommendation follo fro th propositio tha bot facult an student shoul mean ingfull participat i th authorshi decision-makin process Earl i th collaborativ endeavor th superviso shoul provid th studen wit informatio relate t ho authorshi decision ar made th natur o profes siona an nonprofessiona contribution t publications th meanin o authorshi credi an order an th im portanc o bot partie agreein o wha contribution wil b expecte o eac collaborato fo a give leve o authorshi credit Thi informatio wil provid th stu den wit th knowledg necessar t exercis hi o he autonom an t choos whethe t

participat i th authorshi determinatio process Th superviso an studen shoul asses th spe cifi abilitie o eac party th task require t complet th scholarl publication th exten o supervisio re quired an appropriat expectation fo wha eac col laborato ca reasonabl contribut t th project O th basi o thi assessment th collaborator shoul discus an agre o wha tasks contributions an effort ar require o bot partie t warran au thorshi an t determin th orde o authorshi (Shaw chuck Fatis & Breitenstein 1986) Althoug the wil no preven disagreement fro arising suc discussion ma reduc thei likelihood Thi

recommendatio i consisten wit th notio informe consent whic govern th developmen o agreement betwee psychologist an client an betwee researcher an participant (Keith-Spiege & Koocher 1985) I authorshi expectation ar clearl establishe an agree o earl i th collaborativ process bot th superviso an th studen hav give thei informe consen t participat i th projec (Goodyea e a 1992) Althoug w ar no necessaril advocatin th us signe informe consen forms w se nothin i principl tha woul argu agains thei use Afte all, writte consen agreement ar ofte develope b ther apist an clients researcher an subjects

an professor an student engage i independen studies I fact i simila vein AP ha considere requirin author o submitte paper t includ a "authorshi paper, whic woul requir author t agre i writin t th us o thei nam o th pape an t th placemen o thei nam i th listin o author (Landers 1988) I suc form ar no used w advocat makin th agreemen clea a possible shoul b recognize tha som student ma choos no t participat i th authorshi decision makin proces an ma defe t th supervisor A lon th studen ha bee provide wit sufficien infor matio regardin authorship-relate issue an ha bee encourage t participat i

thi process w believ tha th student' choic shoul b respected I suc cases th superviso ma appropriatel mak decision regard in authorshi credi an orde withou studen input Agreement regardin authorshi credi an orde ma nee t b renegotiate fo tw reasons First schol arl project ofte tak unexpecte turn tha necessitat change i initia agreement mad i goo faith Second man manuscript nee t b revise substantiall befor the ar accepte fo publication Thes revision ma requir additiona professiona contribution beyon thos necessar fo th completio o th initia draf o th manuscript Thus whe suc revision ar

required th superviso an studen shoul reexamin thei origina agreemen an determin whethe i need t b modified Outcom Recommendation argu tha th principle o beneficenc an justic justif th us o a "relativ standard fo determinin authorshi credit Accordin t thi stance ther shoul a varyin standar fo th leve o professiona con tributio tha i require t attai a give leve o au thorshi credit Becaus collaborator diffe i thei scholarl expertise thei competenc t contribut professionall t scholarl publication shoul b viewe lyin alon a continuum O on en o th continuu ar collaborator wh hav limite competenc i

schol arl activitie an wh requir intensiv supervision O 114 Novembe 199 America Psychologis
Page 5
th othe en ar collaborator wh hav considerabl competenc i scholarl endeavor an wh functio in dependently th basi o th principl o justice w advanc th potentiall controversia positio tha th leve o contributio expecte o a collaborato shoul depen wher h o sh fall o thi competenc continuum Fo th sam leve o authorshi credit on shoul expec greate professiona contribution fro collaborator wh hav mor competenc tha fro thos wh hav les competence Whe thos wh initiall ha les compe tenc increas thei

level o expertise the shoul b expecte t mak mor substantia professiona contri bution fo th sam leve o authorshi credit Thi i consisten wit th generativ aspec o faculty-studen collaboration—t provid student wit experience tha wil eventuall allo the t conduc independen schol arshi an t assis futur students Wher d student fal o th competenc contin uum O cours students a a group ar les competen scholarl endeavor tha facult are However ther ar importan individua difference i students abilities Som student functio quit independentl an hav considerabl talen i on o mor area relate t schol arl

activity Other hav les expertis an requir inten siv supervision Th ke implicatio o thi positio i that fo th sam leve o authorshi credit justic i serve b expectin relativel les o les competen col laborator tha o mor competen ones Fo example a senio facult membe engage i a collaborativ projec wit a undergraduat psycholog majo shoul b expecte t mak mor comple dat analysi decision tha th student However i th studen participate i th developmen o th researc design th proces o makin dat analysi decisions an i th interpretatio o th findings, withi th limit o th student' limite expertise hi o he

contribution shoul considere professiona an shoul b recognize wit authorshi credit A th student' competenc grow wit increase coursewor an experience h o sh shoul expecte t mak greate contribution fo th sam leve o authorshi credit Therefore w propos tha facult an student us relativ standar t determin authorshi credi an order However w underscor th importan poin tha al case whe student ar grante authorship thei contribution mus b professiona i nature Ou oper ationa definitio of professional i discusse below Severa specifi recommendation follo fro th us o a relativ standar fo determinin authorshi

credi an order T b include a a autho o a scholarl pub lication a studen should i a cumulativ sense mak a professiona contributio tha i creativ an intellectua nature tha i integra t completio o th paper an tha require a overarchin perspectiv o th project Example o professiona contribution includ devel opin th researc design writin portion o th manu script integratin divers theoretica perspectives devel opin ne conceptua models designin assessments contributin t dat analysi decisions an interpretin result (Bridgewater Bornstein & Walkenbach 1981 Spiege & Keith-Spiegel 1970) Suc task a inputtin

data carryin ou dat analyse specifie b th super visor an typin ar no considere professiona contri bution an ma b acknowledge b footnote t th manuscrip (Shawchuc e al. 1986) Fulfillmen o on o tw o th professiona task essentia t th completio o a collaborativ publicatio doe no necessaril justif authorship Rather th su perviso an student—i thei discussion earl i th collaborativ process—mus jointl decid wha combi natio o professiona activitie warrant a give leve o authorshi credi fo bot parties B necessity ther wil som variatio i whic task warran authorshi credi acros differin researc projects

Particularl i comple cases Winston' (1985 weightin schem procedur ma b usefu i determin in whic task ar require fo a give leve o authorshi credit I thi procedure point ar earne fo variou professiona contribution t th scholarl publication Th numbe o point fo eac contributio varie de pendin o it scholarl importance wit researc desig an repor writin assigne th mos points A contributo mus ear a certai numbe o point t ear authorshi credit an th individua wit th highes numbe o point i grante first authorship Thi procedur ha th advantag o helpin al partie involve t carefull ex amin thei respectiv

responsibilitie an contributions However i ou opinion i canno b use i al case becaus o collaborato difference i scholarl abilit an becaus th importanc o variou professiona task dif fer acros projects Wit modificatio (i.e. a weightin point earne base o eac collaborator' leve o scholarl competence) i coul b appropriat fo th relativ standar positio tha w advocate Authorshi decision shoul b base o th scholarl importanc o th professiona contributio an no jus th tim an effor mad (Bridgewate e al. 1981) I ou opinion eve i considerabl tim an effor ar spen o a scholarl project i th aggregat contri

butio i no judge t b professiona b th criteri state above authorshi shoul no b granted Althoug thi ma b anothe controversia po sition w believ tha authorshi decision shoul no b affecte b whethe student o supervisor wer pai fo thei contribution o b thei employmen statu (Brid gewate e al. 1981) I ou opinion i i th natur o th contributio tha i mad t th articl tha determine whethe authorshi credi i warrante an no whethe participant receive compensatio fo thei efforts W believ tha financial remuneratio i no a resourc tha ca serv a a substitut fo authorshi credit A i ofte advocate whe psychologist

ar con fronte wit ethica dilemma (Keith-Spiege & Koocher 1985) w advis supervisor t consul wit colleague whe authorshi concern arise Furthermore supervisor shoul encourag thei student t d th same whethe Novembe 199 America Psychologis 114
Page 6
wit facult o wit studen peers Wit th informa in pu generate fro suc consultations i i possibl tha ne ligh wil b she o th issue involve an tha reasonabl an fai authorshi agreement wil result I th superviso an studen canno agree eve afte consultation wit peers o thei authorship-relate decisions w recommend a d Goodyea e al (1992) th

establishmen o a a ho thir part arbitratio process Whethe thi mechanis shoul b establishe th local state o nationa leve i unclear Ethic com mittees institutiona revie board (IRBs) unbiase professional (Shawchuc e al. 1986) o departmenta committee compose o facult an student (Goodyea al. 1992 ar possibl candidate fo suc a arbitratio mechanism Th importan poin i that give tha bot partie ar considere t b equa contributor t thi aspec o thei wor together dispute nee t b settle outsid parties I suc cases arbitrator ma find Winston' (1985 metho helpful becaus i require a systemati revie o al

contributors scholarl contri bution (Shawchuc e al. 1986) Th Fou Case Revisite thi fina section w retur t th fou hypothetica case describe a th outse o th article First w presen ou view o whe authorshi discussion shoul tak plac an the w offe ou opinion regardin wha au thorshi decision ar defensibl i eac case Cas 1 th discussio regardin authorshi credi an orde shoul ideall hav take plac durin th de velopmen o th thesi proposa bu shoul certainl hav occurre afte th decisio wa mad t attemp t publis th results Th clinica superviso shoul als hav bee include i thes deliberations Similarly i Case 2 an

th discussio shoul hav occurre durin th initia stage o plannin th honor projec an n late tha whe th decisio wa mad t submi a versio o th thesi t a peer-reviewe journal I Cas 3 i additio ther bein a nee fo th psychiatris an superviso for a agreemen regardin authorshi credit th studen shoul hav bee a par o furthe authorshi deliberation whe brough int th project Finally i Cas 4 th studen shoul hav bee consulte whe th revision recommende b th reviewer wer receive th facult member Give th ethica consideration discusse i thi article wha authorshi decision see defensibl i thes cases I Cas 1 th studen

deserve authorshi give th professiona natur o hi contribution H partici pate i generatin th idea developin th researc de sign writin th proposal collectin data an producin severa draft o a manuscript Th mor difficul decisio whethe th studen deserve first authorship give tha h los motivatio towar th en o th writin pro ces an th pape wa finished b th facult membe wh serve a dissertatio committe chair I ou opin ion th appropriatenes o th studen receivin first au thorshi depend o whethe th collaborator believe tha first authorshi woul b retaine b th studen i di no fulfil th agreed-upo

responsibilities Simi larly th leve o authorshi credi receive b th clinica superviso depend o th exten t whic h mad professiona contribution t th articl a specifie i th origina agreement Cas 2 th studen deserve authorshi credi give tha sh generate th topic participate somewha th desig o th study an wrot th pape fo he honor project Doe sh deserv first authorship I ou opinion th ethica appropriatenes o th studen bein first autho revolve aroun whethe sh ha th interest motivation an skil t expan he honor thesi s a t incorporat th complexit o th entir project I sh ha th desir an commitmen t d so an

therefor assume responsibilit fo mos component o th writ in task th superviso ha th ethica obligatio t hel he throug thi proces an sh woul b liste a first author I sh ha neithe th interes no th inclinatio participat i thi additiona writin task the i woul ethicall appropriat fo th superviso t b identifie first autho an th studen a secon author I thi latte instance a footnot t th manuscrip migh b include tha indicate tha par o th articl wa base th student' undergraduat honor thesis Cas 3 present a somewha differen dilemma Di th student' contributio warran authorshi credit Th studen di no

participat i th generatio o th re searc ide o design h wa give a grea dea o assis tanc i conductin a literatur review an h di no participat i writin th manuscrip fo possibl publi cation Therefore h wa lackin i thes area o profes siona contribution O th othe hand h gathere som additiona literature participate i som dat analysi decisions an wrot draft o hi thesis Thes effort wer professiona i nature Althoug furthe dat analyse wer conducte b th superviso an th writin o th manuscrip wa complete b th superviso an th psychiatrist ou po sitio i tha th studen deserve thir authorship Al thoug hi

participatio wa minimal hi contribution were i a cumulativ sense professional Furthermore functione u t hi relativel lo leve o scholarl competence Cas 4 underscore th nee fo supervisor an stu dent t recogniz tha thei agreemen ma nee t b reevaluate a th revie proces unfolds Th studen clearl deserve authorshi becaus sh generate th re searc topic participate i th desig o th stud an th developmen o assessments and—give he relativ inexperience—require surprisingl littl supervision W believ tha th studen shoul hav bee contacte whe th review wer availabl an shoul hav bee give a opportunit t

participat i th revisio process I sh di so ou positio i tha sh woul stil deserv first authorship Conclusio Collectively thes case illustrat th potentia complex ities involve i determinin authorshi credi an orde 114 Novembe 199 America Psychologis
Page 7
faculty-studen collaborativ publications I addition the highligh ou positio tha supervisor canno expec muc fro student a fro experience professiona colleagues hop tha th issue raised principle reviewed an recommendation mad i thi articl wil hel fac ult engag i th proces o making—i conjunctio wit thei students—appropriat authorshi

decisions encourag facult t giv th appropriat amoun o attentio t th importan issu o authorshi throug early thorough an systemati discussion leadin t ex plici agreement wit thei students REFERENCE America Psychologica Associatio Ethic Committee (1983 February) Authorship guidelines for dissertation supervision. Washington DC Author Beauchamp T & Walters L (1982) Contemporary issues in bioethics (2n ed.) Belmont CA Wadsworth Bridgewater C A. Bornstein P H. & Walkenbach J (1981) Ethica issue i th assignmen o publicatio credit American Psychologist, 36, 524-525 Costa M M. & Gatz M (1992)

Determinatio o authorshi credi publishe dissertations Psychological Science, 3, 354-357 Ethica principle o psychologist an cod o conduct (1992) American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611 Goodyear R K. Crego C A. & Johnston M W (1992) Ethica issue th supervisio o studen research A stud o critica incidents Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 203-210 Keith-Spiegel P. & Koocher G P (1985) Ethics in psychology: Profes- sional standards and cases. Ne York Rando House Kitchener K S (1984) Intuition critica evaluatio an ethica prin ciples: Th foundatio fo ethica decision i counselin

psychology The Counseling Psychologist, 12, 43-55 Landers S (1988 December) Shoul editor b detectives too APA Monitor, p 15 Over R. & Smallman S (1973) Maintenanc o individua visibilit publicatio o collaborativ researc b psychologists American Psychologist, 28, 161-166 Shawchuck C R. Fatis M. & Breitenstein J L (1986) A practica guid t th assignmen o authorshi credit The Behavior Therapist, 9, 216-217 Spiegel D. & Keith-Spiegel P (1970) Assignmen o publicatio credits Ethic an practice o psychologists American Psychologist, 25, 738 747 Tabachnick B G. Keith-Spiegel P. & Pope K S (1991) Ethic o

teaching Belief an behavior o psychologist a educators American Psychologist, 46, 506-515 Winston R B. Jr (1985) A suggeste procedur fo determinin orde authorshi i researc publications Journal of Counseling and Development, 63, 515-518 Zuckerman H A (1968) Pattern o nam orderin amon author o scientifi papers A stud o socia symbolis an it ambiguity American Journal of Sociology, 74, 276-291 Novembe 199 America Psychologis 14


About DocSlides
DocSlides allows users to easily upload and share presentations, PDF documents, and images.Share your documents with the world , watch,share and upload any time you want. How can you benefit from using DocSlides? DocSlides consists documents from individuals and organizations on topics ranging from technology and business to travel, health, and education. Find and search for what interests you, and learn from people and more. You can also download DocSlides to read or reference later.
Youtube