The Case:

Dr. Charles, a mid-career faculty member, was revising and updating a book chapter. This led her to review other articles on the same subject to help determine what new material to cover. During the course of her reading, she came upon a chapter in a major text by Dr. Long, a department chair in a leading psychology department, that contained long passages from her previous chapter without attribution.

Dr. Charles called Dr. Long and confronted him with her finding. At first, he vehemently denied having used any of Dr. Charles' text inappropriately. Dr. Charles then faxed Dr. Long copies of the offending passages [and ostensibly her original chapter for comparison purposes]. After some delay, Dr. Long finally responded, acknowledging that the language was indeed remarkably similar; he noted that he had engaged younger members of his research team to write portions of the chapter because he was very busy at the time that the deadline was approaching. Furthermore, to defend himself, he pointed out that much of the original research on which her chapter was based was derived from the work of his team. He admitted only to negligence in not adequately monitoring the activities of his students and subordinates.

Dr. Charles replied that the students/other team members were not acknowledged in Dr. Long's chapter either, and that admission of plagiarism required more than an apology. She indicated her intention to report the matter to Dr. Long's dean and the editor of the text [his and hers?].

Considerations to keep in mind when discussing or pondering the questions listed below:

• keep in mind the various perspectives, points of view, and the types of considerations that might be held by different parties in the conflict;
• identify the consequences of alternative courses of action;
• describe any conflicts of interest, obligations, or values;
• describe duties, obligations, or legitimate expectations of the different parties.

Questions:

1. Did Dr. Charles act appropriately? Considering the differences in status between herself and Dr. Long, what professional risks was she taking, if any?
2. Did Dr. Long do anything wrong? If so, what? What obligations did he violate, if any? Would your answer be different if he were copying his own previous writings instead of someone else's?
3. What should Dr. Long's dean consider in deciding on a course of action?
4. What would the editor of Dr. Long's text consider and do? What would Dr. Charles' editor consider and do?
5. What obligations as mentor does Dr. Long have to his students and research team members? What obligations as senior investigator and/or author?
6. Do you see any role in this case that might be played by Dr. Long's students and team members? If so, what?

The Case:

Bob Powell, a postdoctoral fellow in biochemistry, has just completed a manuscript detailing the results from the first project in which he had taken a leading role. The focus of his project has been to discern the ways in which humans metabolize sulfites, a class of chemicals commonly used to preserve wines and dried fruits. Although he had developed the rough outlines of the project on his own, he owes much to individuals both inside and outside his lab. The assistance he received from others includes the following:

• A colleague at another university, a toxicologist specializing in food additives, shared with Bob his previous work on the in vivo activity of sulfites, information that allowed Bob to choose the ideal animal model for the experiment -- the Abyssinian field mouse.
• A friend of his, who happened to be a wildlife specialist, provided Bob with much advice on rearing and maintaining a colony of Abyssinian field mice such that he would have stable pool of animal subjects.
• A highly experienced technician in the lab gave Bob advice on modifying an assay he had been using, which finally allowed him to measure successfully sulfite metabolites in mouse urine. This technician also assisted in writing up the methods section of the paper.
• The number of assays that Bob had to conduct was quite sizable and more than he could manage on his own, given the other demands of the project. Thus, an undergraduate college student collected most of the urine samples and conducted the assays yielding the data.
• Finally, a senior researcher in a neighboring lab who took an interest in Bob's career offered to review the initial drafts of Bob's paper. By the end of the writing process, this researcher had helped Bob outline the paper, suggested a few additional experiments that strengthened the paper's conclusions, and made a number of editing changes in the penultimate draft that enhanced the paper's clarity.

Questions:

1. What kind of attribution should be given to each of these individuals who contributed in one way or another to Bob's project? For example, who should be recognized as an author and who should receive an acknowledgement in the paper? Who does not merit formal recognition?
2. What criteria should be applied when determining whether:
   • to list someone as an author?
   • to note someone's contributions in the acknowledgement?
3. What are the responsibilities of authors in representing the contributions of others?
4. At what point in the process of conducting and reporting on one's research should decisions concerning authorship and acknowledgements be made?
5. Are decisions concerning attribution entirely Bob's responsibility? Should he consult with others? Why or why not?