werner mid term

The purpose of this article is to attempt to identify potential sources ofvalue conflicts or dilemmas faced by faculty members. Because of the limitations imposed by prevailing norms on what constitutes the academic profession, ethical dilemmas faced by individual faculty members tend to be ignored in professional discussions. One practical consequence of this nearsightedness is that the ethical codes of conduct developed by many disciplinary associations will address research situations but not ethical conflicts encountered in teaching and service. Value issues relevant to service are best addressed at institutional level because of regional and local variation in norms. Ethical dilemmas identified in teaching can becommon to all faculty members and therefore may be addressed at the level of the academic profession.

Rosenthal argues that it is necessary to assess the quality of any study and the quality of the science it represents in determining whether or not a study should be allowed to be conducted. He argues for a cost/benefit analysis, whereby IRBs would look at the tradeoff between the costs of a particular study to participants and the contribution or quality of the science that would result from thestudy. This is in response to several articles that argued that the quality of a study should not be considered by IRBs.

The authors develop an economically-based behavioral model that focuses on the costs and benefits of honesty versus misconduct and talk about how these conditions apply in academia. They say that academia has become increasingly competitive and it puts significant economic pressure on its actors (need publications to get a job, get tenure, be able to move toanother job, etc.). There is little oversight in academia regarding research, data is often proprietary or confidential, and there are many benefits to unethical behavior (if these help get publications). Replications aren’t valued, so they don’t happen, sothat leads to even less oversight.

This article covers what the authors call “streaming,” or presenting or publishing an article at one outlet and then taking the same article with perhaps minor revisions and presenting or publishing it at another publication outlet. They conducted a survey of faculty and deans. The results were that though there was some difference of opinion on most questions, the most important ethical behavior regarding streaming is disclosure. If authors fully disclose the intellectual history of a paper’s developmental process, allegations of possible professional misconduct will be minimized if not eliminated.

This study surveyed journal editors to identify whether there is a consensus on whether certain editor/author/reviewer practices are ethical (this was done with accounting journals). Plagarism and data fabrication were universally seen as unethical.

This article describes a content analysis that was doneon social science codes of ethics to look for similarities and differences across the spectrum in the way they deal with specific ethical principles. They then argue that management research takes place in a context that requires its own specific considerations, and therefore they argue that a management research code of conduct is needed.

This AMJ from the editors talks about when a paper is really new, as in when can a paper be submitted to AMJ a second time after it has been rejected. While Ireland says that legitimate debates can be had about when a paperis really “new”, the guidelines he lays out for AMJ are that the new manuscript must 1) address modified or new research questions, 2) use new theoretical arguments, 3) use additional or new data to test the proposed relationships. All three of these criteria must be met for a paper to be considered new at AMJ.

This AMJ from the editors presents an ethical quiz. The quiz covers six scenarios and applies the AOM code of ethics to explain what a researcher should do. 1) Plagiarism (Don’t do it – even self-plagiarism), 2) Data Reuse (Disclose how data has been used for publications in the past to the editors when you submit), 3) IRB oversight (get it when needed, do what you told the IRB you were going to do when you conduct the study. If there is no IRB, then treat participants with dignity, respect, and get informed consent), 4) Co-authors (Confer with other authors prior to submitting work and get mutually acceptable agreements regarding submission. Don’t give credit to those who don’t deserve it, and don’t exclude from authorship those who do deserve credit), 5) Reviewing (Don’t share reviews with others, don’t steal ideas from papers you review), 6) Reporting results (Don’t fabricate or falsify data or results).

AMR editor’s comments. Author polled 16 former editors of top-tier management journals and asked them to recount one or two instances in which they had to deal with possible ethical violations. Most common theme was authors submitting manuscripts very similar to those that had already been rejectedor published in other journals. Second theme was that these instances were caught only by chance usually – happen upon the similar paper or happen to give the second submission to the same reviewer. Third theme is the regularity with which violations are committed by experienced authors, not just junior faculty who are unaware of the rules. Two solutions for avoiding ethical missteps – 1) know the AOMcode of ethics, and 2) just ask the editor (full disclosure of anything you think might be questionable).

Plagiarism policies and screening at AMJ. Don’t copy and paste. Don’t save an old manuscript as a new one. AOM uses software to catch plagiarism,so it’s very unlikely that it will not be caught these days. Plagiarism cases do vary in their severity. Less severe issues, when detected, will result in a desk edit, wherethe author will be asked to address the issues. More sever will result in a desk reject. Most severe will result in banning author from future submissions to the journal. Suggests using Turnitin before submitting, to check your own work

When deciding if to use deception or not you have to do a cost-benefit analysis.Deception can cause people to distrust researchers and the field in general, so it shouldnot be over-used. - Additionally, check to make sure that the findings would be important to the field. - Give an option to withdraw from the study at any time- Check to see if there is temporary harm or long-term harm. Temporary anxiety/paininflicted (even emotional) must be overcome by the value of the research. Knowledgefor knowledge’s sake will not work here. - Debriefing will allow for people to help overcome emotional damage, by letting the subjectknow that doing the experiment would be impossible/hard to do if the subjects had fullknowledge. This restores honesty to the researcher

reviewers should review in an short time period. reviewers should be blind to the authors, and the authors should be blind to the reviewers, and steps such as prohibiting authors from writing "Our previous study (Randomprofessr001, Random professor002. 2009)" should be taken.

plagarism, data fabrication, people giving joint authorship when they did not work, and similar studies are all bad.

There are different answers to the question of what is ethical research. talks about what "informed consent" should be.

statistical package R presents advantages in that it is constantly updating, free, capable of creating high quality graphics and includes important simulation capabilities. Some disadvantages are that it uses a new language, difficult time with missing data for new users, and little support and documentation

"Misconduct in research and scholarship" means any form of behavior which entails an act of deception whereby one's work or the work of others is misrepresented.

In every 6 AMJ submission rejections, 5 of them are due to low contribution.