Ethics for Astronomers

Transcription

1 Ethics for Astronomers October 08, 2012 Authorship READINGS: ApJ Policy Tarnow on Coauthorship in Physics

2 Authorship: What s at stake? Authorship is a metric of a researcher s scienrfic impact and producrvity. Other metrics are significantly weaker than authorship. Individual and Group research integrity is at stake vis a vis peers, the host insrturon, & public. Funding and promoron (academic degree) is at stake. Authorship is part of the research record, the history of science, and with potenral for fame as scienrfic nomenclature. Life and death issue? Yes scribo, ergo sum Wri0ng assigns permanence to your existence because permanence is a quality of reality and/or truth. One perceives infrac0ons on your wri0ng as a threat to one s existence.

3 Scribo, ergo sum? For science the published research record is both a personal and a public monument. Who created the above? Does credit always require recognition (i.e. across history and across cultures)?

4 Define an author What is the ApJ definiron of an author (Kennicu] 2006)? What is your definiron?

5 How well do we manage COI s in astronomy peer review? Astronomy= ApJ, ApJS, MNRAS, Astroparticle Physics, New Astronomy, ARAA Ancker & Flanagin 2007

6 Define an author? Coauthorship scoring system, Hunt (1991, Nature, 352, 187): need > 25 points, score gives author order

7 The Research Misconduct Authors Gif author: Using the value of authorship in return for something else of value (score<25) Ghost author: FabricaRng an author (score=0) False author: Falsifying an author (score<25, Bubble Fusion) Buddy author: Benificence can be bad Banker author: Who provided the funds but did nothing else. Boss author: Just because they are a supervisor. Alliance author: Let s work together, potenrally OK if Rme- shifed. Rubber stamp author: accrete integrity. JusRfy the Resources author: e.g. put all astronomers on one proposal. Others? Which one s might be OK in other cultures?

8 Boss Author Misconduct 2004, Science, 305, 29

9 Tarnow (2002): APS/URBJ Hybrid DefiniRon

10 Who decides? Can authority to determine authorship change with Rme? Sponsor or InsRtuRon? In astronomy, the observatory? In a dispute, who resolves it and how?

11 Case study A new facility instrument becomes available at an observatory. The observatory director promises authorship to the instrument builders in the first scienrfic paper to be published with new data from the instrument. Various groups from the user community (a consorrum of universires) obtain data, and when the first paper is ready to be submi]ed, the observatory director contacts the PI and/or 1 st author and states that 8 instrument scienrsts must be coauthors. The PI has not heard of this policy before, and calls a meerng of the his two coauthors. From the point of view of the PI and the two co- authors, what would they discuss? What are the principles they might adopt to comply with the director s command, and what principles would they use to reject the dirctor s command? What types of circumstances might change how the enrre story plays out?

12 Case study A group of six astronomers are working on a major discovery where secrecy and speed to publicaron are important. However, three days before submission, one co- author, Calvin, informs his previous Ph.D. supervisor, outside the group, of the result and submission date. The previous Ph.D. supervisor leads a comperng team that has made the same discovery, but their paper is four weeks away from submission. Nevertheless, she submits a draf manuscript to the same journal on the same day as the group of six, thereby assuring her group gets the same submission Rme stamp. Calvin ends up listed as a co- author on both manuscripts. The group of six discover what Calvin had done, and contact the editor of the journal to remove him from the author list. Calvin refuses to be dropped. What arguments to the group of six present to the editor? Why does Calvin refuse to be dropped as an author? Who decides?

13 Case study How does authorship extend to press releases? Press release issued October 6, Authors who are quoted: Looper (student, 1 st author) Burgasser (professor, 3 rd author) Gelino (researcher, 2 nd author) Not quoted: Kirkpatric (4 th author) or people in acknowledgements. Press release retracted (October 08, 2008) due to authorship issue. Who decides? In this case the IfA Director. Who owns the data? (next lecture)

14 Case study Co- owner of data, Michael Liu, not cited in press release, does he have a case for unethical conduct against Looper? Who should be given the authority to adjudicate?

15 Lesson from all of this? Few issues in scienrfic life can now match authorship of collaborarve work for its potenral to distract and destroy (Hunt 1991) Kalas adds: and just wait unrl you get to the press release stage. Just like COI s, authorship issues will be a fact of life that need to be managed. Best idea is to work in advance, up front (and don t forget a discussion of the press release). When you publish in scienrfic journals, the primary interested parres (the owners or stakeholders) are the authors, editors, authors cited, and referees. Who decides is an author/editor affair. When you have a press release, the interested parres are all of the above plus: the director/dean/president/ceos of the insrturons, including the observatories, the funding agencies (NASA, NSF, etc.), the local and naronal government/society, internaronal organizarons, and even the people in the acknowledgements. Who decides is no longer under the exclusive control of the author/editor.

16 Who decides? Publication in a refereed journal. Limited authorship, semi-private viewing. Ownership limited to a few persons. A press release. Many authors, huge audience. Public ownership.